Starmer surely should be polling at 40% or above by 2022 to be showing any signs of progress, even Corbyn achieved that.
That is assuming the Tory vote doesn't collapse through the floor - but it keeps going up in every election so
There will (or at least should be) an election bounce, but there are elections in May. Those will be relevant for a judgement?
Should be yes, Labour will want to make progress in those.
Really 2022 is when it should be clear how the next election is going.
Far too early. Maybe a month before in 2024.
I don't agree. If Labour is stuck in the 30s in 2022 it's very unlikely they're going to be winning. That means they've basically made no progress from Corbyn.
Starmer surely should be polling at 40% or above by 2022 to be showing any signs of progress, even Corbyn achieved that.
That is assuming the Tory vote doesn't collapse through the floor - but it keeps going up in every election so
There will (or at least should be) an election bounce, but there are elections in May. Those will be relevant for a judgement?
Should be yes, Labour will want to make progress in those.
Really 2022 is when it should be clear how the next election is going.
Far too early. Maybe a month before in 2024.
I don't agree. If Labour is stuck in the 30s in 2022 it's very unlikely they're going to be winning. That means they've basically made no progress from Corbyn.
They could be in the 40s but then nosedive again, as happened in 2019.
While they are getting their knickers in a twist over things like which bit of the trans-right pressure group pledge card they agree with, the wider public (including many Labour voters) are not as where near as woke / liberal.
Is there any science behind the y axis scale on this chart?
I believe the data is from British Social Attitudes Survey, which has been running since 1983
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
While they are getting their knickers in a twist over things like which bit of the trans-right pressure group pledge card they agree with, the wider public (including many Labour voters) are not as where near as woke / liberal.
Is there any science behind the y axis scale on this chart?
Probably based on a survey where they are asked to pick between options that are either libertarian or authoritarian. It's conducted by the british social attitudes survey, which I think is legit.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
Starmer has been accused by some of being too Londony, too Southern based but could this be his actual plan?
If he took a good proportion of London, he'd make a massive dent into the Tory majority no?
What if his plan is to do a reverse Johnson and take seats in the South? Has anyone done the numbers and seen if this could work?
You don't have to crunch the numbers. He's a quite hard left, sincerely socialist identity politics Labourite, minus the Corbyn charm (which was real, once), but minus the deadly IRA/Islamism stuff.
Starmer will definitely do better, but I fear (for Labour) he will mainly do better in places where they already do well (eg he will win back some Labour Remainers in university seats).
I do not see his appeal in the North, Scotland or the Midlands.
BUT I can see him looking like a safe pair of hands (which Corbyn didn't), if Brexit goes calamitously tits up, for instance. And that is far from impossible
That is is his USP. Starmer is quite dull and left wing but he looks sane and safe. It might be enough in the right circs.
Good post.
I can see him making decisive progress in 2024, he is pretty much the only candidate I can see as selling some of Corbyn's policies but looking so dull people will think they aren't dangerous.
I can definitely see some kind of reverse post-1992 polling wise if there's a Brexit calamity and/or a recession.
Yeah, If I were Labour I'd be voting Starmer or Nandy. Neither look like they can overturn an 80 seat majority in one go, but who does? They need to be as Michael Howard was for the Tories, a smart stabiliser, who then led to David Cameron and victory. Both are clearly decent people who can slowly purge this awful stain of anti-Semitism.
And, crucially, both look able to be PM, if the Tories really fuck up (which, in times of plague and Brexit, is totally plausible)
I'd vote Nandy just cause I slightly fancy her. But I understand why many of my sane Labour friends are going Starmer.
I am voting and will be putting Starmer 1 and Nandy 2
Ditto.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
On topic if the Tories finally deal with the license fee and the NHS we could see the end of all three of Britain's shittiest institutions within 10 years
Starmer has been accused by some of being too Londony, too Southern based but could this be his actual plan?
If he took a good proportion of London, he'd make a massive dent into the Tory majority no?
What if his plan is to do a reverse Johnson and take seats in the South? Has anyone done the numbers and seen if this could work?
You don't have to crunch the numbers. He's a quite hard left, sincerely socialist identity politics Labourite, minus the Corbyn charm (which was real, once), but minus the deadly IRA/Islamism stuff.
Starmer will definitely do better, but I fear (for Labour) he will mainly do better in places where they already do well (eg he will win back some Labour Remainers in university seats).
I do not see his appeal in the North, Scotland or the Midlands.
BUT I can see him looking like a safe pair of hands (which Corbyn didn't), if Brexit goes calamitously tits up, for instance. And that is far from impossible
That is is his USP. Starmer is quite dull and left wing but he looks sane and safe. It might be enough in the right circs.
Good post.
I can see him making decisive progress in 2024, he is pretty much the only candidate I can see as selling some of Corbyn's policies but looking so dull people will think they aren't dangerous.
I can definitely see some kind of reverse post-1992 polling wise if there's a Brexit calamity and/or a recession.
Yeah, If I were Labour I'd be voting Starmer or Nandy. Neither look like they can overturn an 80 seat majority in one go, but who does? They need to be as Michael Howard was for the Tories, a smart stabiliser, who then led to David Cameron and victory. Both are clearly decent people who can slowly purge this awful stain of anti-Semitism.
And, crucially, both look able to be PM, if the Tories really fuck up (which, in times of plague and Brexit, is totally plausible)
I'd vote Nandy just cause I slightly fancy her. But I understand why many of my sane Labour friends are going Starmer.
I am voting and will be putting Starmer 1 and Nandy 2
Ditto.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
That view brought us Major, Brown and May.
Edit, and I think the alleged saleability of Milliband E. The other Milliband majoring on dull but lacking (other than to the committed) any obvious other virtues,
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Given that AI has already produced new "compositions" by Mozart that have fooled classical music critics, into believing they are the real thing, this may not be the lacerating point you hoped.
I've read a lot about AI. I am convinced it will overtake human endeavours in almost every role by 2050
Here's one: politicians. Just as we now trust computers to land us safely in planes, in tricky circumstances, soon we will trust computers to land our societies safely out of recessions, natural disasters, etc
AI is nowhere close when it comes to text. Before we even get to the whole issue of long term memory (compared to a song which has a very simple structure), which existing techniques have no idea how to solve, of course they can't even read / understand many simple sentences
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
You don't have to crunch the numbers. He's a quite hard left, sincerely socialist identity politics Labourite, minus the Corbyn charm (which was real, once), but minus the deadly IRA/Islamism stuff.
Starmer will definitely do better, but I fear (for Labour) he will mainly do better in places where they already do well (eg he will win back some Labour Remainers in university seats).
I do not see his appeal in the North, Scotland or the Midlands.
BUT I can see him looking like a safe pair of hands (which Corbyn didn't), if Brexit goes calamitously tits up, for instance. And that is far from impossible
That is is his USP. Starmer is quite dull and left wing but he looks sane and safe. It might be enough in the right circs.
Good post.
I can see him making decisive progress in 2024, he is pretty much the only candidate I can see as selling some of Corbyn's policies but looking so dull people will think they aren't dangerous.
I can definitely see some kind of reverse post-1992 polling wise if there's a Brexit calamity and/or a recession.
Yeah, If I were Labour I'd be voting Starmer or Nandy. Neither look like they can overturn an 80 seat majority in one go, but who does? They need to be as Michael Howard was for the Tories, a smart stabiliser, who then led to David Cameron and victory. Both are clearly decent people who can slowly purge this awful stain of anti-Semitism.
And, crucially, both look able to be PM, if the Tories really fuck up (which, in times of plague and Brexit, is totally plausible)
I'd vote Nandy just cause I slightly fancy her. But I understand why many of my sane Labour friends are going Starmer.
I am voting and will be putting Starmer 1 and Nandy 2
Ditto.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
That view brought us Major, Brown and May.
Regarding what wins elections, I think you've just agreed with my point (accepting that the 2005 was effectively won by Labour touting Brown as the post-election replacement to Blair).
However, any parallel with Major and May should end there. Nor do I think that Starmer's apparently consensual style bears much comparison with Brown's controlling tendencies.
It is a pity that our membership in the south don't see the need to have a leader who gets it.
Tory Leavers may prefer Nandy but will vote for Boris anyway, Tory and LD and SNP Remainers might switch though to a Starmer led Labour
Please explain how SNP voters find Starmer attractive. Genuinely inquisitive, as I have never seen any Scottish Unionist commentators making this claim.
Starmer will not cut it with the Scots
He would actually be the most popular Labour leader with Scots since Brown
An English North London elite lawyer being popular in Scotland for labour. - not a chance
Read the polls, he polls higher in Scotland than England and went to uni in Leeds not the South for undergrad.
Sturgeon is also an elite lawyer anyway
In what sense is she an “elite lawyer”?
My reaction too. Unless being a solicitor makes you “elite” these days?
According to Richard Burgon it brings in only a modest wage...
I’m sure a lot of solicitors are hard up.
Artificial Intelligence is going to decimate most legal jobs, so I cannot see a bright future for that group.
The average solicitor salary is £42,500, hardly hard up and well above average.
In the city partners in law firms earn 6 or even 7 figure salaries.
While AI may reduce the demand for paralegal work and basic conveyancing work, for more complex contract, tax work there is likely still to be a need for human solicitors and solicitors will still be needed to attend clients in the cells
Starmer has been accused by some of being too Londony, too Southern based but could this be his actual plan?
If he took a good proportion of London, he'd make a massive dent into the Tory majority no?
What if his plan is to do a reverse Johnson and take seats in the South? Has anyone done the numbers and seen if this could work?
You don't have to crunch the numbers. He's a quite hard left, sincerely socialist identity politics Labourite, minus the Corbyn charm (which was real, once), but minus the deadly IRA/Islamism stuff.
Starmer will definitely do better, but I fear (for Labour) he will mainly do better in places where they already do well (eg he will win back some Labour Remainers in university seats).
I do not see his appeal in the North, Scotland or the Midlands.
BUT I can see him looking like a safe pair of hands (which Corbyn didn't), if Brexit goes calamitously tits up, for instance. And that is far from impossible
That is is his USP. Starmer is quite dull and left wing but he looks sane and safe. It might be enough in the right circs.
Good post.
I can see him making decisive progress in 2024, he is pretty much the only candidate I can see as selling some of Corbyn's policies but looking so dull people will think they aren't dangerous.
I can definitely see some kind of reverse post-1992 polling wise if there's a Brexit calamity and/or a recession.
Yeah, If I were Labour I'd be voting Starmer or Nandy. Neither look like they can overturn an 80 seat majority in one go, but who does? They need to be as Michael Howard was for the Tories, a smart stabiliser, who then led to David Cameron and victory. Both are clearly decent people who can slowly purge this awful stain of anti-Semitism.
And, crucially, both look able to be PM, if the Tories really fuck up (which, in times of plague and Brexit, is totally plausible)
I'd vote Nandy just cause I slightly fancy her. But I understand why many of my sane Labour friends are going Starmer.
I am voting and will be putting Starmer 1 and Nandy 2
Ditto.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
That view brought us Major, Brown and May.
Edit, and I think the alleged saleability of Milliband E. The other Milliband majoring on dull but lacking (other than to the committed) any obvious other virtues,
None of those 3 lost a general election outright bar Major in 1997 (but Major won in 1992 too)
While they are getting their knickers in a twist over things like which bit of the trans-right pressure group pledge card they agree with, the wider public (including many Labour voters) are not as where near as woke / liberal.
Is there any science behind the y axis scale on this chart?
Probably based on a survey where they are asked to pick between options that are either libertarian or authoritarian. It's conducted by the british social attitudes survey, which I think is legit.
Yes I get that but who decides what the questions are and how to weight them?
Indeed, what are the questions and how were they weighted?
My point is: it could be a well-intentioned but essentially meaningless survey.
Given that AI has already produced new "compositions" by Mozart that have fooled classical music critics, into believing they are the real thing, this may not be the lacerating point you hoped.
I've read a lot about AI. I am convinced it will overtake human endeavours in almost every role by 2050
Here's one: politicians. Just as we now trust computers to land us safely in planes, in tricky circumstances, soon we will trust computers to land our societies safely out of recessions, natural disasters, etc
AI is nowhere close when it comes to text. Before we even get to the whole issue of long term memory (compared to a song which has a very simple structure), which existing techniques have no idea how to solve, of course they can't even read / understand many simple sentences
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
It is a pity that our membership in the south don't see the need to have a leader who gets it.
Tory Leavers may prefer Nandy but will vote for Boris anyway, Tory and LD and SNP Remainers might switch though to a Starmer led Labour
Please explain how SNP voters find Starmer attractive. Genuinely inquisitive, as I have never seen any Scottish Unionist commentators making this claim.
Starmer will not cut it with the Scots
He would actually be the most popular Labour leader with Scots since Brown
An English North London elite lawyer being popular in Scotland for labour. - not a chance
Read the polls, he polls higher in Scotland than England and went to uni in Leeds not the South for undergrad.
Sturgeon is also an elite lawyer anyway
In what sense is she an “elite lawyer”?
My reaction too. Unless being a solicitor makes you “elite” these days?
According to Richard Burgon it brings in only a modest wage...
I’m sure a lot of solicitors are hard up.
Artificial Intelligence is going to decimate most legal jobs, so I cannot see a bright future for that group.
While they are getting their knickers in a twist over things like which bit of the trans-right pressure group pledge card they agree with, the wider public (including many Labour voters) are not as where near as woke / liberal.
Is there any science behind the y axis scale on this chart?
Probably based on a survey where they are asked to pick between options that are either libertarian or authoritarian. It's conducted by the british social attitudes survey, which I think is legit.
Yes I get that but who decides what the questions are and how to weight them?
Indeed, what are the questions and how were they weighted?
My point is: it could be a well-intentioned but essentially meaningless survey.
Opinions can change surprisingly quickly, significantly faster than explained by demographic cohort effects. 10 years ago gay marriage was highly controversial and often mocked in the same terms as wokeness is now. That is no longer the case, and a number of leading politicians and leaders across the world are gay-married, to the point that it is barely remarked upon.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Starmer has a net positive rating of +27% with Remainers but a net negative rating of -12% with Leavers.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
Though as the article points out, her loss of the associated Royal Protection was a contributing factor in her untimely demise.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
I agree EFTA/EEA is likely where we eventually end up, 54% of voters think staying in the single market acceptable (including 55% of Scots), 27% unacceptable. Only 47% however thought Remain/Rejoin was acceptable. Even 47% of Tory voters think it acceptable to 41% unacceptable.
By contrast only 38% of voters think No Deal, WTO terms acceptable, to 49% unacceptable.
Though 73% of Tory and Leave voters and 94% of Brexit Party voters think No Deal would be acceptable.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Starmer has a net positive rating of +27% with Remainers but a net negative rating of -12% with Leavers.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
Same here. Even as a supporter of retaining our monarhical system I find the focus on such details, and particular the supposed lasting hurt that sort of thing is supposed to have caused, to be extremely tedious and overwrought.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
But it isn't just a loss, it's a humiliation.
Only if you feel humiliated by it, or play along. An attempt at humiliation which doesn't affect its target rebounds twice as effectively. A similar thing is at play when trying to gently shame the shameless to no effect.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Starmer has a net positive rating of +27% with Remainers but a net negative rating of -12% with Leavers.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Starmer has a net positive rating of +27% with Remainers but a net negative rating of -12% with Leavers.
While they are getting their knickers in a twist over things like which bit of the trans-right pressure group pledge card they agree with, the wider public (including many Labour voters) are not as where near as woke / liberal.
Is there any science behind the y axis scale on this chart?
Probably based on a survey where they are asked to pick between options that are either libertarian or authoritarian. It's conducted by the british social attitudes survey, which I think is legit.
Yes I get that but who decides what the questions are and how to weight them?
Indeed, what are the questions and how were they weighted?
My point is: it could be a well-intentioned but essentially meaningless survey.
Well they've been conducting this meaningless survey for 40 or so years then! The details for the survey are likely on their website.
AI will probably be able to have a good stab at a novel for people to read on the bus. Especially if it doesn’t matter that the characters all have the same verbal style.
GPT2 is the leading AI for creating text given some suggested topics. Although individually the sentences read ok, lets just say it is a million miles away from writing anything convincing, let alone entertaining, for more than a few sentences.
For your archetypal beach novel, the sort that comes within raised gold raised lettering on the cover, that’s enough?
No. Not even close.
We are once again on the cusp of another AI winter.
To be honest this AI boom was just using all the old techniques but with more computing power.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Starmer has a net positive rating of +27% with Remainers but a net negative rating of -12% with Leavers.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
But it isn't just a loss, it's a humiliation.
Only if you feel humiliated by it, or play along. An attempt at humiliation which doesn't affect its target rebounds twice as effectively. A similar thing is at play when trying to gently shame the shameless to no effect.
Read the piece: it put her in the impossible position where she has either to curtsey to her own sons or be guilty of a lack of respect to them. Your argument would justify for example, all forms of non-physical workplace bullying because it just creates an opportunity for the victim to rise above it.
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Starmer has a net positive rating of +27% with Remainers but a net negative rating of -12% with Leavers.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
What perception on PB? Having voted Leave, and rejoined Labour, I will be delighted if Starmer becomes leader. And not only because I have a bet on him doing that at odds of 16/1.
Starmer has a net positive rating of +27% with Remainers but a net negative rating of -12% with Leavers.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
Though as the article points out, her loss of the associated Royal Protection was a contributing factor in her untimely demise.
Not such a significant factor as sadly failing to wear a seatbelt.
(See Unnatural Causes by Richard Shepherd - an excellent book btw.)
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
I'm a bit sceptical about this stuff. We had Charles visiting the constituency - I met his train with a couple of other locals and we chatted briefly and politely. Nobody bowed.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
But it isn't just a loss, it's a humiliation.
Only if you feel humiliated by it, or play along. An attempt at humiliation which doesn't affect its target rebounds twice as effectively. A similar thing is at play when trying to gently shame the shameless to no effect.
Read the piece: it put her in the impossible position where she has either to curtsey to her own sons or be guilty of a lack of respect to them. Your argument would justify for example, all forms of non-physical workplace bullying because it just creates an opportunity for the victim to rise above it.
Did she, thereafter, curtsey to her sons? No.
Does that mean she showed them a lack of respect? Of course not - they were he sons FFS!
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
But it isn't just a loss, it's a humiliation.
Only if you feel humiliated by it, or play along. An attempt at humiliation which doesn't affect its target rebounds twice as effectively. A similar thing is at play when trying to gently shame the shameless to no effect.
Read the piece: it put her in the impossible position where she has either to curtsey to her own sons or be guilty of a lack of respect to them. Your argument would justify for example, all forms of non-physical workplace bullying because it just creates an opportunity for the victim to rise above it.
Did she, thereafter, curtsey to her sons? No.
Does that mean she showed them a lack of respect? Of course not - they were he sons FFS!
It still smacks of Charles being petty and vindictive.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
But it isn't just a loss, it's a humiliation.
Only if you feel humiliated by it, or play along. An attempt at humiliation which doesn't affect its target rebounds twice as effectively. A similar thing is at play when trying to gently shame the shameless to no effect.
Read the piece: it put her in the impossible position where she has either to curtsey to her own sons or be guilty of a lack of respect to them. Your argument would justify for example, all forms of non-physical workplace bullying because it just creates an opportunity for the victim to rise above it.
Did she, thereafter, curtsey to her sons? No.
Does that mean she showed them a lack of respect? Of course not - they were he sons FFS!
It still smacks of Charles being petty and vindictive.
Well, I agree with that. But in the great scheme of things...
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
I'm a bit sceptical about this stuff. We had Charles visiting the constituency - I met his train with a couple of other locals and we chatted briefly and politely. Nobody bowed.
Sure, amongst normal folk that is the case, but the Royal Family are not normal folk, and arcane issues of title and precedence are the bread and butter of the aristocracy world. They know that muggles always get it wrong.
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Excephuman.
Certainly not grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
But it isn't just a loss, it's a humiliation.
Only if you feel humiliated by it, or play along. An attempt at humiliation which doesn't affect its target rebounds twice as effectively. A similar thing is at play when trying to gently shame the shameless to no effect.
Read the piece: it put her in the impossible position where she has either to curtsey to her own sons or be guilty of a lack of respect to them. Your argument would justify for example, all forms of non-physical workplace bullying because it just creates an opportunity for the victim to rise above it.
I would not apply such a thing to workplace bullying, I despise bullying and attempts to minimise it, but I don't think matters of arcane etiquette would reasonably fall into that category when the people who would supposedly be disrespected by her failure to do so would know there was no such disrespect. Benpointer makes that point quite clearly as far as I'm concerned. I'm not immune to the pulling of heartstrings but media and others have tried that too often with the memory of Diana for it to have effect and I think that is what is going on with that story, far too blatantly, and I don't think that particular example is equatable to workplace bullying, nor did I nor would I have made such an equation.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
I had not realised that losing the hrh meant that diana had to curtsey to other royals inc her own children. What a monumental shit Charles is.
Except, surely, she doesn't 'have' to. No one has to curtsey to anyone. What would have happened if she hadn't? Would I have to bow to Prince Charles, if I met him? He can bollocks. I'llshow him the same respect I'd show any other human.
Certainly not something that I would abide by, but Royalty do think these things matter. Harry doesn't have a lot of family. Despite grandstanding at Diana's funeral, his maternal uncle hasn't been visibly supportive.
If it is true I find it quite disappointing that Diana was bothered one iota by the loss of the HRH title; I thought she was better than that.
But it isn't just a loss, it's a humiliation.
Only if you feel humiliated by it, or play along. An attempt at humiliation which doesn't affect its target rebounds twice as effectively. A similar thing is at play when trying to gently shame the shameless to no effect.
Read the piece: it put her in the impossible position where she has either to curtsey to her own sons or be guilty of a lack of respect to them. Your argument would justify for example, all forms of non-physical workplace bullying because it just creates an opportunity for the victim to rise above it.
Did she, thereafter, curtsey to her sons? No.
Does that mean she showed them a lack of respect? Of course not - they were he sons FFS!
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
It still baffles me that they can be considering a man with his current health issues to run for a four year term.
It seems almost inevitable to me that they are actually heading towards handing his VP a guaranteed promotion
Ocasio Cortez could well be Bernie's VP given how close they are, which would make the ticket even more left-wing than McGovern's.
Trump of course can't believe his luck
Bernie will probably win fewer states than McGovern.
I doubt even Bernie will lose Massachusetts, he will probably lose the popular vote and suffer the biggest Democratic defeat since the 1980s as Corbyn did for Labour last year but he should scrape enough coastal states and a handful in the Midwest to beat McGovern's tally
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
It still baffles me that they can be considering a man with his current health issues to run for a four year term.
It seems almost inevitable to me that they are actually heading towards handing his VP a guaranteed promotion
Ocasio Cortez could well be Bernie's VP given how close they are, which would make the ticket even more left-wing than McGovern's.
Trump of course can't believe his luck
Bernie will probably win fewer states than McGovern.
I doubt even Bernie will lose Massachusetts, he will probably lose the popular vote and suffer the biggest Democratic defeat since the 1980s as Corbyn did for Labour last year but he should scrape enough coastal states and a handful in the Midwest to beat McGovern's tally
How do you square your view of Sanders going down in flames with this?
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
It still baffles me that they can be considering a man with his current health issues to run for a four year term.
It seems almost inevitable to me that they are actually heading towards handing his VP a guaranteed promotion
Ocasio Cortez could well be Bernie's VP given how close they are, which would make the ticket even more left-wing than McGovern's.
Trump of course can't believe his luck
Bernie will probably win fewer states than McGovern.
I doubt even Bernie will lose Massachusetts, he will probably lose the popular vote and suffer the biggest Democratic defeat since the 1980s as Corbyn did for Labour last year but he should scrape enough coastal states and a handful in the Midwest to beat McGovern's tally
How do you square your view of Sanders going down in flames with this?
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
It still baffles me that they can be considering a man with his current health issues to run for a four year term.
It seems almost inevitable to me that they are actually heading towards handing his VP a guaranteed promotion
Ocasio Cortez could well be Bernie's VP given how close they are, which would make the ticket even more left-wing than McGovern's.
Trump of course can't believe his luck
Bernie will probably win fewer states than McGovern.
I doubt even Bernie will lose Massachusetts, he will probably lose the popular vote and suffer the biggest Democratic defeat since the 1980s as Corbyn did for Labour last year but he should scrape enough coastal states and a handful in the Midwest to beat McGovern's tally
How do you square your view of Sanders going down in flames with this?
Indeed of all the Dem candidates only Sanders and Warren show a lead over Trump on all of the February polls quoted by RCP.
That is before Trump's campaign launches the biggest negative ad campaign against Bernie, 'the Kremlin backed, Cuba loving crazy Commie' in US political history.
They will do to Sanders what LBJ did to Goldwater, make him look nuts and of course even the linked polls you gave give only a small Sanders lead with Trump's approval rating rising
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
You almost have to admire such shameless BS from that moron.
Russia boosting Trump? Fake news. Russia boosting Sanders? True, and Trump will repeat it until election day.
This is just the beginning.
Absolutely. Hell Trump's National Security Advisor is already claiming not to have seen evidence of Russia wanting to boost Trump — he should speak to the Office of the DNI they briefed Congress about just that — but he's parroting Trump about the Sanders support. This is seriously screwed up.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
It still baffles me that they can be considering a man with his current health issues to run for a four year term.
It seems almost inevitable to me that they are actually heading towards handing his VP a guaranteed promotion
Ocasio Cortez could well be Bernie's VP given how close they are, which would make the ticket even more left-wing than McGovern's.
Trump of course can't believe his luck
Bernie will probably win fewer states than McGovern.
I doubt even Bernie will lose Massachusetts, he will probably lose the popular vote and suffer the biggest Democratic defeat since the 1980s as Corbyn did for Labour last year but he should scrape enough coastal states and a handful in the Midwest to beat McGovern's tally
How do you square your view of Sanders going down in flames with this?
Indeed of all the Dem candidates only Sanders and Warren show a lead over Trump on all of the February polls quoted by RCP.
That is before Trump's campaign launches the biggest negative ad campaign against Bernie, 'the Kremlin backed, Cuba loving crazy Commie' in US political history.
They will do to Sanders what LBJ did to Goldwater, make him look nuts and of course even the linked polls you gave give only a small Sanders lead with Trump's approval rating rising
Look, I understand that Trump will probably win re-election - most incumbents do. But I don't think Sanders is very much less well placed than any of the other challengers.
Surprised at you @HYUFD, you who normally place such faith in the polls.
You almost have to admire such shameless BS from that moron.
Russia boosting Trump? Fake news. Russia boosting Sanders? True, and Trump will repeat it until election day.
This is just the beginning.
Absolutely. Hell Trump's National Security Advisor is already claiming not to have seen evidence of Russia wanting to boost Trump — he should speak to the Office of the DNI they briefed Congress about just that — but he's parroting Trump about the Sanders support. This is seriously screwed up.
In the court of king Donald, unquestioning loyalty is the only test for preferment.
Starmer has been accused by some of being too Londony, too Southern based but could this be his actual plan?
If he took a good proportion of London, he'd make a massive dent into the Tory majority no?
What if his plan is to do a reverse Johnson and take seats in the South? Has anyone done the numbers and seen if this could work?
You don't have to crunch the numbers. He's a quite hard left, sincerely socialist identity politics Labourite, minus the Corbyn charm (which was real, once), but minus the deadly IRA/Islamism stuff.
Starmer will definitely do better, but I fear (for Labour) he will mainly do better in places where they already do well (eg he will win back some Labour Remainers in university seats).
I do not see his appeal in the North, Scotland or the Midlands.
BUT I can see him looking like a safe pair of hands (which Corbyn didn't), if Brexit goes calamitously tits up, for instance. And that is far from impossible
That is is his USP. Starmer is quite dull and left wing but he looks sane and safe. It might be enough in the right circs.
Good post.
I can see him making decisive progress in 2024, he is pretty much the only candidate I can see as selling some of Corbyn's policies but looking so dull people will think they aren't dangerous.
I can definitely see some kind of reverse post-1992 polling wise if there's a Brexit calamity and/or a recession.
Yeah, If I were Labour I'd be voting Starmer or Nandy. Neither look like they can overturn an 80 seat majority in one go, but who does? They need to be as Michael Howard was for the Tories, a smart stabiliser, who then led to David Cameron and victory. Both are clearly decent people who can slowly purge this awful stain of anti-Semitism.
And, crucially, both look able to be PM, if the Tories really fuck up (which, in times of plague and Brexit, is totally plausible)
I'd vote Nandy just cause I slightly fancy her. But I understand why many of my sane Labour friends are going Starmer.
I am voting and will be putting Starmer 1 and Nandy 2
Ditto.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
Starmer has been accused by some of being too Londony, too Southern based but could this be his actual plan?
If he took a good proportion of London, he'd make a massive dent into the Tory majority no?
What if his plan is to do a reverse Johnson and take seats in the South? Has anyone done the numbers and seen if this could work?
You don't have to crunch the numbers. He's a quite hard left, sincerely socialist identity politics Labourite, minus the Corbyn charm (which was real, once), but minus the deadly IRA/Islamism stuff.
Starmer will definitely do better, but I fear (for Labour) he will mainly do better in places where they already do well (eg he will win back some Labour Remainers in university seats).
I do not see his appeal in the North, Scotland or the Midlands.
BUT I can see him looking like a safe pair of hands (which Corbyn didn't), if Brexit goes calamitously tits up, for instance. And that is far from impossible
That is is his USP. Starmer is quite dull and left wing but he looks sane and safe. It might be enough in the right circs.
Good post.
I can see him making decisive progress in 2024, he is pretty much the only candidate I can see as selling some of Corbyn's policies but looking so dull people will think they aren't dangerous.
I can definitely see some kind of reverse post-1992 polling wise if there's a Brexit calamity and/or a recession.
Yeah, If I were Labour I'd be voting Starmer or Nandy. Neither look like they can overturn an 80 seat majority in one go, but who does? They need to be as Michael Howard was for the Tories, a smart stabiliser, who then led to David Cameron and victory. Both are clearly decent people who can slowly purge this awful stain of anti-Semitism.
And, crucially, both look able to be PM, if the Tories really fuck up (which, in times of plague and Brexit, is totally plausible)
I'd vote Nandy just cause I slightly fancy her. But I understand why many of my sane Labour friends are going Starmer.
I am voting and will be putting Starmer 1 and Nandy 2
Ditto.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
Memo to Vice President Biden; Mayor Bloomberg; Mayor Buttigieg; Senator Klobuchar; and Senator Warren
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
Bernie is going to win the nomination regardless now I think, though never fear a Kennedy may be on the way for 2024 if Trump trounces Bernie as Nixon did McGovern.
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
You almost have to admire such shameless BS from that moron.
Russia boosting Trump? Fake news. Russia boosting Sanders? True, and Trump will repeat it until election day.
This is just the beginning.
Absolutely. Hell Trump's National Security Advisor is already claiming not to have seen evidence of Russia wanting to boost Trump — he should speak to the Office of the DNI they briefed Congress about just that — but he's parroting Trump about the Sanders support. This is seriously screwed up.
In the court of king Donald, unquestioning loyalty is the only test for preferment.
It's a green light to Russia, Trump is not going to do anything substantial to call them out or stop them interfering. Previously we could kind of assume that the intelligence community and DOJ might act somewhat independently, unless explicitly told not to, but with recent appointments that now seems increasingly unlikely. The people who intended to get on with the job have more or less all gone now, to be replaced by Trump loyalists who say only what Trump wants to hear.
If he took a good proportion of London, he'd make a massive dent into the Tory majority no?
What if his plan is to do a reverse Johnson and take seats in the South? Has anyone done the numbers and seen if this could work?
You don't have to crunch the numbers. He's a quite hard left, sincerely socialist identity politics Labourite, minus the Corbyn charm (which was real, once), but minus the deadly IRA/Islamism stuff.
Starmer will definitely do better, but I fear (for Labour) he will mainly do better in places where they already do well (eg he will win back some Labour Remainers in university seats).
I do not see his appeal in the North, Scotland or the Midlands.
BUT I can see him looking like a safe pair of hands (which Corbyn didn't), if Brexit goes calamitously tits up, for instance. And that is far from impossible
That is is his USP. Starmer is quite dull and left wing but he looks sane and safe. It might be enough in the right circs.
Good post.
I can see him making decisive progress in 2024, he is pretty much the only candidate I can see as selling some of Corbyn's policies but looking so dull people will think they aren't dangerous.
I can definitely see some kind of reverse post-1992 polling wise if there's a Brexit calamity and/or a recession.
Yeah, If I were Labour I'd be voting Starmer or Nandy. Neither look like they can overturn an 80 seat majority in one go, but who does? They need to be as Michael Howard was for the Tories, a smart stabiliser, who then led to David Cameron and victory. Both are clearly decent people who can slowly purge this awful stain of anti-Semitism.
And, crucially, both look able to be PM, if the Tories really fuck up (which, in times of plague and Brexit, is totally plausible)
I'd vote Nandy just cause I slightly fancy her. But I understand why many of my sane Labour friends are going Starmer.
I am voting and will be putting Starmer 1 and Nandy 2
Ditto.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
Half the country already has that view of him.
I think a lot more than that knew what he was, when they voted for him last December.
It still baffles me that they can be considering a man with his current health issues to run for a four year term.
It seems almost inevitable to me that they are actually heading towards handing his VP a guaranteed promotion
Ocasio Cortez could well be Bernie's VP given how close they are, which would make the ticket even more left-wing than McGovern's.
Trump of course can't believe his luck
Bernie will probably win fewer states than McGovern.
I doubt even Bernie will lose Massachusetts, he will probably lose the popular vote and suffer the biggest Democratic defeat since the 1980s as Corbyn did for Labour last year but he should scrape enough coastal states and a handful in s tally
How do you square your view of Sanders going down in flames with this?
Indeed of all the Dem candidates only Sanders and Warren show a lead over Trump on all of the February polls quoted by RCP.
That is before Trump's campaign launches the biggest negative ad campaign against Bernie, 'the Kremlin backed, Cuba loving crazy Commie' in US political history.
They will do to Sanders what LBJ did to Goldwater, make him look nuts and of course even the linked polls you gave give only a small Sanders lead with Trump's approval rating rising
Look, I understand that Trump will probably win re-election - most incumbents do. But I don't think Sanders is very much less well placed than any of the other challengers.
Surprised at you @HYUFD, you who normally place such faith in the polls.
Depends which polls you look at, some have Bloomberg and Biden or even Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing better v Trump than Sanders (though not Warren) and they are less likely to be vulnerable to negative ads.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a consensual style that is needed to get as much talent from across the party on board.
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
I agree EFTA/EEA is likely where we eventually end up, 54% of voters think staying in the single market acceptable (including 55% of Scots), 27% unacceptable. Only 47% however thought Remain/Rejoin was acceptable. Even 47% of Tory voters think it acceptable to 41% unacceptable.
By contrast only 38% of voters think No Deal, WTO terms acceptable, to 49% unacceptable.
Though 73% of Tory and Leave voters and 94% of Brexit Party voters think No Deal would be acceptable.
That’s why the smart move by the government is divergence as soon as withdrawal agreement finishes and do it on something that seems positive in itself but you know would be unacceptable to an eea agreement and murder to undo.
An easy one would be the banning of live animal export.
Boom just like that. You diverge and make our membership of the single market pretty much impossible.
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
At tonights hustings in Durham, Starmer said that he would appoint Nandy and RLB to his shadow cabinet and they both agreed they would appoint their leadership opponents as well if they won
Furthermore, all three stressed their determination to accept the Brexit outcome and abandon all talk of rejoining
Both points are absurd. There are nothing to suggest that Long-Bailey has anything worth hearing and rejoining as a medium term policy is perfectly appropriate and quite saleable. All the Labour candidates could, if this an accurate description, try honesty.
I would disagree. It is important for Labour to cease its infighting, and while a little bland, Starmer does have a in can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
I agree EFTA/EEA is likely where we eventually end up, 54% of voters think staying in the single market acceptable (including 55% of Scots), 27% unacceptable. Only 47% however thought Remain/Rejoin was acceptable. Even 47% of Tory voters think it acceptable to 41% unacceptable.
By contrast only 38% of voters think No Deal, WTO terms acceptable, to 49% unacceptable.
Though 73% of Tory and Leave voters and 94% of Brexit Party voters think No Deal would be acceptable.
That’s why the smart move by the government is divergence as soon as withdrawal agreement finishes and do it on something that seems positive in itself but you know would be unacceptable to an eea agreement and murder to undo.
An easy one would be the banning of live animal export.
Boom just like that. You diverge and make our membership of the single market pretty much impossible.
Not really, Starmer could still take us back into the single market if he becomes PM at the next general election if the economy goes into recession on WTO terms.
Plus causing 'undue suffering' to animals is illegal under EU law anyway, as is preventing animals getting adequate food and rest and space.
Banning live animal exports completely is likely to mainly appeal to vegetarians and Green party voters who are hardly going to vote Tory anyway
Personally I feel that Harry has turned into a whinging petulant child and it is doing him no favours. I’m all for him retiring to a private life but then he needs to stop trying to hang onto the benefits of royal life and commenting on what royal means. His latest outburst is ill-judged. A long period of silence from him would be wise.
A period of calm and competent getting on with their jobs would be welcome in our institutions.
There is perhaps a personal element to why Harry is bothered by removal of the HRH title.
Except that he hasn’t lost it. He’s just agreed not to use it. And this was after he’d decided to leave royal life and move to Canada.
If he really wants a personal private life away from press intrusion why does he feel the need to issue a statement every 5 minutes?
I think though it does show why these titles matter in Royal circles.
It is very much a shame that Harry and Meghan have been driven abroad, but knowing our press, not surprising.
There is restraint in reporting in this country, following the death of Diana - by a 'truce'.
Not elsewhere.
I think in that particular decision they have walked into a lamp post.
Indeed, they have already been criticised by the US press. What they seemed to want was a fawning uncritical press rather than one pointing out their occasionally high-handed approach to their roles, their use of public money and their utter hypocrisy over their green credentials. If they choose a celebrity life with Harry hawking his mother’s death round the speech circuit, they are going to face press intrusion. If they want a private life - and they’re rich enough to do so - let them get on with it without fuss.
Entitled whingeing cakeism is both unedifying and tedious.
Comments
https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/
https://twitter.com/murrayf00te/status/1231680381612646401?s=20
In terms of European policy, going EFTA/EEA in a few years is a very reasonable plan. It disarms both the Scottish and Irish questions and even keeps a fair few Leavers on board. Rejoin can wait a little longer.
I think the LDs will continue to poll around 8-10%. There is a hard core of support, and different geography and demography to Labour. It is likely that Starmer will also work well with the LDs and Greens.
Starmer got a large number of CLP nominations in Midlands, North, Wales and Scotland. The perception of him on PB doesn't seem shared by the activists in these places.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
Edit, and I think the alleged saleability of Milliband E. The other Milliband majoring on dull but lacking (other than to the committed) any obvious other virtues,
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1231700157835730945?s=19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3vIEKWrP9Q
However, any parallel with Major and May should end there. Nor do I think that Starmer's apparently consensual style bears much comparison with Brown's controlling tendencies.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-solicitor-salary
In the city partners in law firms earn 6 or even 7 figure salaries.
While AI may reduce the demand for paralegal work and basic conveyancing work, for more complex contract, tax work there is likely still to be a need for human solicitors and solicitors will still be needed to attend clients in the cells
Indeed, what are the questions and how were they weighted?
My point is: it could be a well-intentioned but essentially meaningless survey.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/20/antibiotic-that-kills-drug-resistant-bacteria-discovered-through-ai
With all voters Starmer has a net positive rating of +5%
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/low-public-awareness-all-labour-leadership-candidates-although-keir-starmer-starting-stronger
By contrast only 38% of voters think No Deal, WTO terms acceptable, to 49% unacceptable.
Though 73% of Tory and Leave voters and 94% of Brexit Party voters think No Deal would be acceptable.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/29/search-median-voter-brexit
We are once again on the cusp of another AI winter.
To be honest this AI boom was just using all the old techniques but with more computing power.
Corbyn though has a net rating of -46%, -30% with Remainers and -71% with Leavers
At the Las Vegas debate, each of you took aim at one another, often to withering effect. But with few exceptions, you declined to really challenge Senator Sanders. If you repeat this strategy at the South Carolina debate this week, you could hand the nomination to Sanders, likely dooming the Democratic Party – and the nation – to Trump and sweeping down-ballot Republican victories in November.
The reasons for this dire prediction are many, as we note below, but one is paramount: Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and the political toxicity of his self-selected brand cannot be overstated. As recent polling from Gallup shows, 53% of voters, including 51% of Independents, say they would not vote for “an otherwise well-qualified candidate for president” if that candidate is a socialist. That’s game over.
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/stand-up-to-bernie-or-you-and-we-all-lose
Quite the reversal from Corbyn.
(See Unnatural Causes by Richard Shepherd - an excellent book btw.)
Does that mean she showed them a lack of respect? Of course not - they were he sons FFS!
A Sanders campaign will likely be hopeless but romantic for Bohemian intellectuals and should at least provide some good journalism, Hunter S Thompson wrote the brilliant 'Fear and loathing on the campaign trail' following McGovern in his doomed 1972 campaign
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_on_the_Campaign_Trail_'72
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1231653965298794497?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230898043735678978?s=20
It seems almost inevitable to me that they are actually heading towards handing his VP a guaranteed promotion
Trump of course can't believe his luck
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1231651294042972160?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1231372451893972993?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1231366964611866625?s=20
Russia boosting Trump? Fake news.
Russia boosting Sanders? True, and Trump will repeat it until election day.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html
Indeed of all the Dem candidates only Sanders and Warren show a lead over Trump on all of the February polls quoted by RCP.
Maybe I am wrong. Sure hope so.
They will do to Sanders what LBJ did to Goldwater, make him look nuts and of course even the linked polls you gave give only a small Sanders lead with Trump's approval rating rising
https://youtu.be/dDTBnsqxZ3k
Is she our Britain Trump ?
If he really wants a personal private life away from press intrusion why does he feel the need to issue a statement every 5 minutes?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/civil-service-dominic-cummings-hr-rules
Tic tock...
Surprised at you @HYUFD, you who normally place such faith in the polls.
Let's see how it all unfolds.
PS Trump's approval rating is now falling again:
https://fivethirtyeight.com
It is very much a shame that Harry and Meghan have been driven abroad, but knowing our press, not surprising.
If he took a good proportion of London, he'd make a massive dent into the Tory majority no?
What if his plan is to do a reverse Johnson and take seats in the South? Has anyone done the numbers and seen if this could work?
You don't have to crunch the numbers. He's a quite hard left, sincerely socialist identity politics Labourite, minus the Corbyn charm (which was real, once), but minus the deadly IRA/Islamism stuff.
Starmer will definitely do better, but I fear (for Labour) he will mainly do better in places where they already do well (eg he will win back some Labour Remainers in university seats).
I do not see his appeal in the North, Scotland or the Midlands.
BUT I can see him looking like a safe pair of hands (which Corbyn didn't), if Brexit goes calamitously tits up, for instance. And that is far from impossible
That is is his USP. Starmer is quite dull and left wing but he looks sane and safe. It might be enough in the right circs.
Good post.
I can see him making decisive progress in 2024, he is pretty much the only candidate I can see as selling some of Corbyn's policies but looking so dull people will think they aren't dangerous.
I can definitely see some kind of reverse post-1992 polling wise if there's a Brexit calamity and/or a recession.
Yeah, If I were Labour I'd be voting Starmer or Nandy. Neither look like they can overturn an 80 seat majority in one go, but who does? They need to be as Michael Howard was for the Tories, a smart stabiliser, who then led to David Cameron and victory. Both are clearly decent people who can slowly purge this awful stain of anti-Semitism.
And, crucially, both look able to be PM, if the Tories really fuck up (which, in times of plague and Brexit, is totally plausible)
I'd vote Nandy just cause I slightly fancy her. But I understand why many of my sane Labour friends are going Starmer.
I am voting and will be putting Starmer 1 and Nandy 2
Ditto.
And I think dull decent competence will look quite attractive come 2024. It will because the PM will by then be perceived as a charismatic charlatan.
Half the country already has that view of him.
I think a lot more than that knew what he was, when they voted for him last December.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230337690433916928?s=20..
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230545507539353600?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230155168257323008?s=20
Trump's approval rating is also up to 46% with RCP, the same as his 2016 vote
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230916000117338113?s=20
An easy one would be the banning of live animal export.
Boom just like that. You diverge and make our membership of the single market pretty much impossible.
What would such an inquiry be into?
Worth establishing exactly what the complaint is about before deciding what inquiry, if any, is needed.
Not elsewhere.
I think in that particular decision they have walked into a lamp post.
Plus causing 'undue suffering' to animals is illegal under EU law anyway, as is preventing animals getting adequate food and rest and space.
Banning live animal exports completely is likely to mainly appeal to vegetarians and Green party voters who are hardly going to vote Tory anyway
Entitled whingeing cakeism is both unedifying and tedious.