Morning all! An interesting thread which my 6 months as a LibDem gives me no rights to comment on. Ah well...
I think Davey is doing a perfectly solid job and had committed to vote for him until my departure. The coalition like all governments did Good and Bad with the LibDems responsible for many of the bits people remember as good. Running away from their record in office would be Corbynite levels of stupid when they attack Blair and Brown endlessly. Davey I think can manage the balance between "here's what we did good" and "here's what we did bad" whilst looking like a grown up politician.
Swinson had Pzazz but no real substance underneath it and made the grave mistake of believing her own spin regardless of evidence. Hubris and arrogance is the downfall of many politicians and she was no exception - I read the "What went wrong" report into the election and the party deserves massive credit for both commissioning and publishing warts and all. But "Flight of Icarus" was a simpler summary.
I wasn't a good fit with the LibDems. Part of their party overlaps with my perspective and I was truly made welcome. But their internal battle between classic Liberals and Social Democrats which I guess goes back 30 odd years to the merger hasn't been resolved. I found it hard to state what the party was for despite thinking the 2019 manifesto was excellent. Unless they can figure this out they will struggle for traction in what is still a bipolar Labour/Tory are evil vote Tory/Labour world.
RP that was interesting and sorry to lose you back to Labour. I am interested in one point you make which I would appreciate an expansion on. I am a Liberal. I am definitely not a Social Democrat, However I don't find any issue with the fit and have never seen an issue with it. Can you elaborate?
Sure - it was readily visible with the Orange Book vs the Social Democrats. During the coalition years I read quite a bit on LibDemVoice (I read Tory and Labour boards too...) of Social Democrats absolutely outraged by the coalition even existing never mind some of its policies. My local LibDem Party was very negative towards those years, more so than I was which was quite amusing.
Fundamentally because of FPTP all parties get painted into two camps - Labour leaning or Tory leaning. In 2019 I was clear that neither candidate for PM was fit for office and wanted as hung a parliament as possible to reign in their excesses/madness. That isn't realistic - it will be one or the other until we have a proportional electoral system. That forces the LibDems into ultimately leaning one way or the other - and that is the debate which isn't easily resolved for you trying to be truly centrist.
Rolls Royce news very bad for East Midlands. 9K redundancies with 1000s more in supply chain likely.
I am hearing rumbles about JCB from someone I know who sells JCB parts. Friend of a friend sort of anecdote, but given the economic climate at present......
A receptacle for an “Anti-Tory” tactical or “none of the above” protest vote [snip] The latter none of the above vote being their stock in trade that kept them winning by-elections. At the very least they need to get back to that.
The NOTA vote was significant, but has probably left the building for a generation.
Also I would support NOTA as a candidate on ballot papers anyway, and given the potential advantage I could see the Conservatives making such a change in future.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Interesting views on the LD leadership. I've voted LD more often than other parties and was briefly a member, just long enough to vote for Huhne twice as leader, so my judgement is obviously not very good! I've also voted Labour, Green (EU only) and Conservative in my couple of decades of voting.
Davey would have been an excellent leader when Corbyn was still Labour leader. Would have been a safe home for Tories appalled by Brexit/Johnson and those more on the right of Labour appalled by Corbyn. I'd have voted LD at the last election under Davey. I'm very unlikely to vote Conservative under Johnson and would not vote Labour under Corbyn, but (policies pending) I've no problem voting Labour under Starmer. Davey, so far, doesn't convince me otherwise (although come election I'd look at both manifestos and might end up LD). Moran is a massive turn off, from what I've seen (and, for me, she should be a non-starter after the police incident - a man with that history would be, and rightly so). So if I was a LD member I'd be taking a close look at Cooper to see whether she might be worth a punt. Under Davey, I'd expect modest gains at the next election, maybe quite good gains if Johnson puts enough natural conservatives off and Starmer's manifesto is too far left for those people, but I don't think he really answers what the point of the LDs is, other than as an option for the moderate voters of both Labour and Conservatives when they're put off by their leaders.
The comparisons with some other countries are quite misleading, as the "app" is only one tool being used by many other countries.
Those countries where contract tracing is working best are also doing things like giving health authorities access to payments data, mobile phone signalling data, and access to CCTV. If you throw privacy out the window you can trace people quite effectively and you don't really need an "app".
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Isn’t the utility of this poll suspect without a breakdown of intention within each of the five named states, which there doesn’t seem to be? They don’t vote as a bloc. One of the five states could skew this poll while the rest go the other way.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
Morning all! An interesting thread which my 6 months as a LibDem gives me no rights to comment on. Ah well...
I think Davey is doing a perfectly solid job and had committed to vote for him until my departure. The coalition like all governments did Good and Bad with the LibDems responsible for many of the bits people remember as good. Running away from their record in office would be Corbynite levels of stupid when they attack Blair and Brown endlessly. Davey I think can manage the balance between "here's what we did good" and "here's what we did bad" whilst looking like a grown up politician.
Swinson had Pzazz but no real substance underneath it and made the grave mistake of believing her own spin regardless of evidence. Hubris and arrogance is the downfall of many politicians and she was no exception - I read the "What went wrong" report into the election and the party deserves massive credit for both commissioning and publishing warts and all. But "Flight of Icarus" was a simpler summary.
I wasn't a good fit with the LibDems. Part of their party overlaps with my perspective and I was truly made welcome. But their internal battle between classic Liberals and Social Democrats which I guess goes back 30 odd years to the merger hasn't been resolved. I found it hard to state what the party was for despite thinking the 2019 manifesto was excellent. Unless they can figure this out they will struggle for traction in what is still a bipolar Labour/Tory are evil vote Tory/Labour world.
RP that was interesting and sorry to lose you back to Labour. I am interested in one point you make which I would appreciate an expansion on. I am a Liberal. I am definitely not a Social Democrat, However I don't find any issue with the fit and have never seen an issue with it. Can you elaborate?
Sure - it was readily visible with the Orange Book vs the Social Democrats. During the coalition years I read quite a bit on LibDemVoice (I read Tory and Labour boards too...) of Social Democrats absolutely outraged by the coalition even existing never mind some of its policies. My local LibDem Party was very negative towards those years, more so than I was which was quite amusing.
Fundamentally because of FPTP all parties get painted into two camps - Labour leaning or Tory leaning. In 2019 I was clear that neither candidate for PM was fit for office and wanted as hung a parliament as possible to reign in their excesses/madness. That isn't realistic - it will be one or the other until we have a proportional electoral system. That forces the LibDems into ultimately leaning one way or the other - and that is the debate which isn't easily resolved for you trying to be truly centrist.
I'm definitely a Liberal rather than Social Democrat but don't think this dimension plays heavily within the party nowadays; if there is a division it's between social liberals and free market liberals. Most social democrats would find themselves with the former (some however have always been economically more right-leaning) but former liberals are evenly divided. Many who came from the old Liberal Party lean more leftwards than many ex SDP.
There is a small social democrat organisation within the party that is calling for a return to focusing on core issues and less emphasis on fringe issues and some of the identity politics that is afflicting most parties nowadays. Whilst the latter is sometimes seen as liberal, it isn't liberalism as I have always understood it (which emphasises freedom of opportunity regardless of - and hence downplaying - identity).
My impression is that the coalition was a lot easier to bear for those LibDems facing Tories as their principal opponent, and much more difficult in Labour facing areas. It was the latter where LibDem council groups were pretty much wiped out.
The fact he was in the coalition should not harm him either given the vast majority of LD target seats are Tory Remain seats now not Labour seats, if anything it could help him win over Tory Remainers
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
It's wonderful, isn't it?
Even after everything that's happened, and is still happening in countries like Brazil, we have bright sparks popping up and saying "on anecdotal (i.e. scientifically worthless) evidence I think it's low (undefined) therefore we should be allowed to do X (reasoning unexplained)".
I was sitting on the bus next to Corbyn (or was it Boris, I can’t remember).
I realise my comment was open to satire, but I thought it worth posting as I think it might help explain why sometimes politicians that come over badly with the public, are backed by their own parties.
To me, as a non-supporter, Davey is the obvious choice - more pros less cons.
I suspect Layla Moran is more appealing to LDs, but perhaps only to them.
I can’t see the appeal of Davey. All of the coalition baggage, but nothing to spark an interest.
The Lib Dems are in a perilous position. Worst-case scenario at the next election is that they lose a lot of voters as Brexit fades as an issue, and they are otherwise seen as irrelevant.
Davey could appear to be a safe pair of hands, and would be a reaction against the bolder Swinson approach. Is that enough?
Seems to me that the Lib Dems stand for non-ideological good governance, which superficially doesn't sound like a bad thing, but it means the status quo with minor adjustments - and no-one's buying that now.
A receptacle for an “Anti-Tory” tactical or “none of the above” protest vote [snip] The latter none of the above vote being their stock in trade that kept them winning by-elections. At the very least they need to get back to that.
The NOTA vote was significant, but has probably left the building for a generation.
Also I would support NOTA as a candidate on ballot papers anyway, and given the potential advantage I could see the Conservatives making such a change in future.
NOTA doesn’t work as a candidate because you have to elect someone and make a choice.
The LD leader is important because they help shape the public debate and offer a different point of view without all the baggage of nationalism.
Interesting views on the LD leadership. I've voted LD more often than other parties and was briefly a member, just long enough to vote for Huhne twice as leader, so my judgement is obviously not very good! I've also voted Labour, Green (EU only) and Conservative in my couple of decades of voting.
Davey would have been an excellent leader when Corbyn was still Labour leader. Would have been a safe home for Tories appalled by Brexit/Johnson and those more on the right of Labour appalled by Corbyn. I'd have voted LD at the last election under Davey. I'm very unlikely to vote Conservative under Johnson and would not vote Labour under Corbyn, but (policies pending) I've no problem voting Labour under Starmer. Davey, so far, doesn't convince me otherwise (although come election I'd look at both manifestos and might end up LD). Moran is a massive turn off, from what I've seen (and, for me, she should be a non-starter after the police incident - a man with that history would be, and rightly so). So if I was a LD member I'd be taking a close look at Cooper to see whether she might be worth a punt. Under Davey, I'd expect modest gains at the next election, maybe quite good gains if Johnson puts enough natural conservatives off and Starmer's manifesto is too far left for those people, but I don't think he really answers what the point of the LDs is, other than as an option for the moderate voters of both Labour and Conservatives when they're put off by their leaders.
Starmer will almost certainly need LD support to become PM, so Davey could end up Deputy PM to Starmer in 2024 as Clegg was to Cameron in 2010
Rolls Royce news very bad for East Midlands. 9K redundancies with 1000s more in supply chain likely.
I am hearing rumbles about JCB from someone I know who sells JCB parts. Friend of a friend sort of anecdote, but given the economic climate at present......
There will be a very lengthy wave of mass redundancies and indeed bankruptcies as the economy contracts and reshapes. I have been urging several of my colleagues to keep their foot on the gas hard - we have plenty of opportunities in this market as well as the obvious risks. Fundamentally better to work our arses off to keep the boat sailing and stay in a job than to let it sink by cock-up and be trying to find a new job in the economy to come...
Saw it a few days ago. It was a lot of fun and I enjoyed it a lot.
But the puzzle itself was not particularly hard. With so many constraints (once he had got over the initial shock of a grid with only 2 numbers) he was able to use only pretty basic techniques to clear the grid.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
That does seem to be the case from what data there is. Quite how London went from worst to best remains unexplained.
Of the people who are outdoors there's probably a high prevalence of immunity. The initial outbreak here was bad. I know quite a few people who have had symptoms including myself. Multiply that by 9 for those who don't get symptoms and it would be surprising of 20-25% of the population of London has already had it, and that will be more concentrated among people who venture out.
In case anyone is wondering how the travel industry is doing I can assure you it is in rude health. My company's daily revenue is down a mere 94% year-on-year.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Men are always judging women on their appearance. It is so commonplace that I think most of us simply put up with it (most of the time).
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Clegg got the Liberals into Government, the only Liberal leader to do so since Lloyd George
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
Except they've done exactly that in Germany and new case numbers have continued to drop.
In case anyone is wondering how the travel industry is doing I can assure you it is in rude health. My company's daily revenue is down a mere 94% year-on-year.
But we were assured by so many that the government would be able to make it work, our experts are the best in the world and couldn't possibly be wrong.
This is going to cost an additional £20bn in economic support. If Hancock wasn't already the human shield he's just becone one. He will carry the can for pretty much al of the failures, they're all in his shop.
While I agree with you on this point, I think the far bigger failure is the delay in getting a large cohort of contract tracers trained and working across the country. It's perfectly possible to do the job without any app at all (as it has been done for many decades), and the training could have taken place well before testing capacity was available.
And the cost to the economy is quite possibly significantly more than £20bn.
In case anyone is wondering how the travel industry is doing I can assure you it is in rude health. My company's daily revenue is down a mere 94% year-on-year.
I have two friends at Expedia who don't expect to be called back from being furloughed. It's going to be s very tough year or two for international travel.
Older PBers will remember we used to be blessed with the far-sighted @SeanT who forecast China's forthcoming hegemony following its huge investments in science, technology and infrastructure, contrasted with government cuts here, and warning us against the lazy (and a little bit racist) assumption that the Chinese could only copy and not innovate.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
Except they've done exactly that in Germany and new case numbers have continued to drop.
No they haven't. They've had a gradual, managed easing in the context of a robust testing and track and trace regime which is, frankly, light years ahead of the UK's.
Interesting views on the LD leadership. I've voted LD more often than other parties and was briefly a member, just long enough to vote for Huhne twice as leader, so my judgement is obviously not very good! I've also voted Labour, Green (EU only) and Conservative in my couple of decades of voting.
Davey would have been an excellent leader when Corbyn was still Labour leader. Would have been a safe home for Tories appalled by Brexit/Johnson and those more on the right of Labour appalled by Corbyn. I'd have voted LD at the last election under Davey. I'm very unlikely to vote Conservative under Johnson and would not vote Labour under Corbyn, but (policies pending) I've no problem voting Labour under Starmer. Davey, so far, doesn't convince me otherwise (although come election I'd look at both manifestos and might end up LD). Moran is a massive turn off, from what I've seen (and, for me, she should be a non-starter after the police incident - a man with that history would be, and rightly so). So if I was a LD member I'd be taking a close look at Cooper to see whether she might be worth a punt. Under Davey, I'd expect modest gains at the next election, maybe quite good gains if Johnson puts enough natural conservatives off and Starmer's manifesto is too far left for those people, but I don't think he really answers what the point of the LDs is, other than as an option for the moderate voters of both Labour and Conservatives when they're put off by their leaders.
A well reasoned position, but as with many people you don't take into account the constituency factor. There are still some that will never return a Labour MP and others that will never return a Tory. I know that this was somewhat upended last year but I suspect we'll see a bit of a return to the previous situation now Corbyn and Brexit are no longer issues. I would certainly consider the local situation as well as leaders and policies when deciding who to vote for.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Though it needs contact tracing first.
As we've seen, 'a very low level' can get much bigger very quickly. But it's also relatively easy to stop that happening if you have the system in place. What needs to be avoided is any second lockdown; we just cannot afford it.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Clegg got the Liberals into Government, the only Liberal leader to do so since Lloyd George
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
It's wonderful, isn't it?
Even after everything that's happened, and is still happening in countries like Brazil, we have bright sparks popping up and saying "on anecdotal (i.e. scientifically worthless) evidence I think it's low (undefined) therefore we should be allowed to do X (reasoning unexplained)".
Or more likely you're an irrational lockdown fascist who ignores the evidence coming out of other countries who have done exactly this and not seen a rise in new cases. Schools, outdoor spaces and businesses and shops. All of them should be open now. You can continue to be scared of your own shadow but it doesn't change the evidence that there isn't a huge amount of outdoor transmission and that there isn't a huge amount of transmission in supermarkets or that the chances of child to adult transmission is extremely low.
These are all new things we didn't previously know and our policy needs to be updated to reflect them.
Morning all! An interesting thread which my 6 months as a LibDem gives me no rights to comment on. Ah well...
I think Davey is doing a perfectly solid job and had committed to vote for him until my departure. The coalition like all governments did Good and Bad with the LibDems responsible for many of the bits people remember as good. Running away from their record in office would be Corbynite levels of stupid when they attack Blair and Brown endlessly. Davey I think can manage the balance between "here's what we did good" and "here's what we did bad" whilst looking like a grown up politician.
Swinson had Pzazz but no real substance underneath it and made the grave mistake of believing her own spin regardless of evidence. Hubris and arrogance is the downfall of many politicians and she was no exception - I read the "What went wrong" report into the election and the party deserves massive credit for both commissioning and publishing warts and all. But "Flight of Icarus" was a simpler summary.
I wasn't a good fit with the LibDems. Part of their party overlaps with my perspective and I was truly made welcome. But their internal battle between classic Liberals and Social Democrats which I guess goes back 30 odd years to the merger hasn't been resolved. I found it hard to state what the party was for despite thinking the 2019 manifesto was excellent. Unless they can figure this out they will struggle for traction in what is still a bipolar Labour/Tory are evil vote Tory/Labour world.
RP that was interesting and sorry to lose you back to Labour. I am interested in one point you make which I would appreciate an expansion on. I am a Liberal. I am definitely not a Social Democrat, However I don't find any issue with the fit and have never seen an issue with it. Can you elaborate?
Sure - it was readily visible with the Orange Book vs the Social Democrats. During the coalition years I read quite a bit on LibDemVoice (I read Tory and Labour boards too...) of Social Democrats absolutely outraged by the coalition even existing never mind some of its policies. My local LibDem Party was very negative towards those years, more so than I was which was quite amusing.
Fundamentally because of FPTP all parties get painted into two camps - Labour leaning or Tory leaning. In 2019 I was clear that neither candidate for PM was fit for office and wanted as hung a parliament as possible to reign in their excesses/madness. That isn't realistic - it will be one or the other until we have a proportional electoral system. That forces the LibDems into ultimately leaning one way or the other - and that is the debate which isn't easily resolved for you trying to be truly centrist.
Thank you. I'm not keen on the straight line left right thing. A social democrat will (in my opinion) fall in the centre of that line. A liberal won't be on the line.
So it was really Social Democrats not liking the coalition with the Tories, which I guess I understand, whereas my differences are equal with both and I have agreements with both and some views that would be considered far to the left and far to the right by some if positioned on a straight line. And I consider both main parties to be too authoritarian.
*Which could eventually be the first (and probably only) military aircraft to be in service for a century.
The RR contender is made in Germany so no help to the Derwent Riviera anyway.
Have they replaced all the wing spars and boxes? Surely fatigue will be an issue by now? Or do they fly so little that they are not clocking up flight time?
With Sir Keir Starmer heading Labour, there's not much point to Ed Davey. The country doesn't need two dull serious middle aged male leaders trading off their experience.
That said, neither of the other two candidates look exactly compelling. He may still be the best of a bad job.
In case anyone is wondering how the travel industry is doing I can assure you it is in rude health. My company's daily revenue is down a mere 94% year-on-year.
I have two friends at Expedia who don't expect to be called back from being furloughed. It's going to be s very tough year or two for international travel.
Bad for travel, probably but not necessarily. At the moment you cannot go anywhere but if there were a coordinated lifting of restrictions, tourism could recover quickly. It would need to be coordinated, though, as there is no point in Spain allowing tourists in if they still face 14 days of quarantine on returning home.
Interesting views on the LD leadership. I've voted LD more often than other parties and was briefly a member, just long enough to vote for Huhne twice as leader, so my judgement is obviously not very good! I've also voted Labour, Green (EU only) and Conservative in my couple of decades of voting.
Davey would have been an excellent leader when Corbyn was still Labour leader. Would have been a safe home for Tories appalled by Brexit/Johnson and those more on the right of Labour appalled by Corbyn. I'd have voted LD at the last election under Davey. I'm very unlikely to vote Conservative under Johnson and would not vote Labour under Corbyn, but (policies pending) I've no problem voting Labour under Starmer. Davey, so far, doesn't convince me otherwise (although come election I'd look at both manifestos and might end up LD). Moran is a massive turn off, from what I've seen (and, for me, she should be a non-starter after the police incident - a man with that history would be, and rightly so). So if I was a LD member I'd be taking a close look at Cooper to see whether she might be worth a punt. Under Davey, I'd expect modest gains at the next election, maybe quite good gains if Johnson puts enough natural conservatives off and Starmer's manifesto is too far left for those people, but I don't think he really answers what the point of the LDs is, other than as an option for the moderate voters of both Labour and Conservatives when they're put off by their leaders.
Starmer will almost certainly need LD support to become PM, so Davey could end up Deputy PM to Starmer in 2024 as Clegg was to Cameron in 2010
Yep - and he's probably the one you could most easily see working with/appealing to Starmer. Trouble is, without articulating what the LDs add to that government, what's the point of me voting LD for a Labour government, rather than Labour for a Labour government (part of the reverse problem after the coalition). The leader needs to explain what LD means and what their requirements would be to work with either of the two main parties (those requirements might, in practice, rule out one party, but in principle they should be neutral and willing to work with whoever best gets the LD agenda implemented).
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Clegg got the Liberals into Government, the only Liberal leader to do so since Lloyd George
Clegg was great, right up to and including 2010 polling day. It was afterwards that he got things wrong.
(Arguably the tuition fees pledge was foolish - it was certainly stupid to sign up to something as an absolute red line if it wasn't a personal red line).
With Sir Keir Starmer heading Labour, there's not much point to Ed Davey. The country doesn't need two dull serious middle aged male leaders trading off their experience.
That said, neither of the other two candidates look exactly compelling. He may still be the best of a bad job.
I think Davey would be more appealing to potential Tory --> LD switches at the next election. The LD/Labour front is almost non-existent:
The LDs are not electing a PM , they are electing someone who will get them noticed and can organise the back office so that they can win local and by-elections.
I can’t see that many TV producers or journalists saying ‘let’s do a piece with Ed Davey, that will get the audience interested’.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising...
To be fair, many of the comments relate to image/appearance rather than looks per se. I really don't care how politicians look - but how they present themselves is another matter.
And FWIW, a female version of Ken Clarke - an absolute mess who doesn't give a toss about their appearance, but clearly highly competent - would probably do quite well.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
Except they've done exactly that in Germany and new case numbers have continued to drop.
It's this kind of sheer stupidity that's so frustrating.
The ONS estimate of active cases in the UK at the moment is about 0.25% of the population. The estimate of R under normal circumstances implies cases will increase by a factor of something like 200 in a month. That would mean most of the population would be infected. We can't just go back to normal.
SOMETHING NEEDS TO STOP THE VIRUS SPREADING, OTHERWISE MOST OF THE POPULATION WILL BE INFECTED IN A MONTH.
What evidence do you have that any given relaxation of the restrictions won't raise R again? "They've done it in Germany and case numbers have contnued to drop." Well - the most recent daily number of new cases in Germany on WHO situation report is 797, and a week earlier it was 798. Not much of a drop, really. It looks pretty much like R=1, doesn't it?
But the main point is that Germany has so many fewer active cases than the UK. Testing and tracing contacts has an impact on the value of R. It's feasible in Germany, because those 800 cases a day are probably a much higher proportion of the true number than the 2500 or so in the UK.
So if that's your evidence, it's no evidence at all.
But we were assured by so many that the government would be able to make it work, our experts are the best in the world and couldn't possibly be wrong.
This is going to cost an additional £20bn in economic support. If Hancock wasn't already the human shield he's just becone one. He will carry the can for pretty much al of the failures, they're all in his shop.
While I agree with you on this point, I think the far bigger failure is the delay in getting a large cohort of contract tracers trained and working across the country. It's perfectly possible to do the job without any app at all (as it has been done for many decades), and the training could have taken place well before testing capacity was available.
And the cost to the economy is quite possibly significantly more than £20bn.
This is what is so depressing. We let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As you say, recruitment and training could have started immediately. And even without the app, a simple paper checklist would have been a start. It might even have told us whether Cheltenham mattered a damn.
The LDs are not electing a PM , they are electing someone who will get them noticed and can organise the back office so that they can win local and by-elections.
A big problem is that those two things - ability to rebuild an organisation from the nuts and bolts, and being a maverick attention grabber - so rarely reside in the same person.
Interesting views on the LD leadership. I've voted LD more often than other parties and was briefly a member, just long enough to vote for Huhne twice as leader, so my judgement is obviously not very good! I've also voted Labour, Green (EU only) and Conservative in my couple of decades of voting.
Davey would have been an excellent leader when Corbyn was still Labour leader. Would have been a safe home for Tories appalled by Brexit/Johnson and those more on the right of Labour appalled by Corbyn. I'd have voted LD at the last election under Davey. I'm very unlikely to vote Conservative under Johnson and would not vote Labour under Corbyn, but (policies pending) I've no problem voting Labour under Starmer. Davey, so far, doesn't convince me otherwise (although come election I'd look at both manifestos and might end up LD). Moran is a massive turn off, from what I've seen (and, for me, she should be a non-starter after the police incident - a man with that history would be, and rightly so). So if I was a LD member I'd be taking a close look at Cooper to see whether she might be worth a punt. Under Davey, I'd expect modest gains at the next election, maybe quite good gains if Johnson puts enough natural conservatives off and Starmer's manifesto is too far left for those people, but I don't think he really answers what the point of the LDs is, other than as an option for the moderate voters of both Labour and Conservatives when they're put off by their leaders.
A well reasoned position, but as with many people you don't take into account the constituency factor. There are still some that will never return a Labour MP and others that will never return a Tory. I know that this was somewhat upended last year but I suspect we'll see a bit of a return to the previous situation now Corbyn and Brexit are no longer issues. I would certainly consider the local situation as well as leaders and policies when deciding who to vote for.
True. If Johnson is still leader then I'd probably vote LD in any constituency where LD were better placed to win than Labour, whoever the LD leader was .
But what about the constituencies (there are still some?) where it's LD versus Labour? The LD leader needs to make the case for a coalition involving LD being better than a Lab majority. Or, say we had Cameron versus Corbyn still, in the several places where it's Con or LD, I'd be looking at why I should vote LD rather than Conservative.
The LDs are not electing a PM , they are electing someone who will get them noticed and can organise the back office so that they can win local and by-elections.
A big problem is that those two things - ability to rebuild an organisation from the nuts and bolts, and being a maverick attention grabber - so rarely reside in the same person.
And why Grimond is still revered within the party.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Clegg got the Liberals into Government, the only Liberal leader to do so since Lloyd George
Clegg was great, right up to and including 2010 polling day. It was afterwards that he got things wrong.
(Arguably the tuition fees pledge was foolish - it was certainly stupid to sign up to something as an absolute red line if it wasn't a personal red line).
If Cameron's account in his autobiography can be believed (yes, I know...) George Osborne warned Clegg about the likely electoral consequences.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
Except they've done exactly that in Germany and new case numbers have continued to drop.
They have efficient widespread contact tracing in Germany, though, and have had for some time.
*Which could eventually be the first (and probably only) military aircraft to be in service for a century.
The RR contender is made in Germany so no help to the Derwent Riviera anyway.
Have they replaced all the wing spars and boxes? Surely fatigue will be an issue by now? Or do they fly so little that they are not clocking up flight time?
The Buffs hail from an era (most of it was designed in the 40s) before CAD and FEA allowed aircraft to be just strong enough to meet the spec. So it was massively over-engineered. See also RC-135.
I was sitting on the bus next to Corbyn (or was it Boris, I can’t remember).
I realise my comment was open to satire, but I thought it worth posting as I think it might help explain why sometimes politicians that come over badly with the public, are backed by their own parties.
To me, as a non-supporter, Davey is the obvious choice - more pros less cons.
I suspect Layla Moran is more appealing to LDs, but perhaps only to them.
I can’t see the appeal of Davey. All of the coalition baggage, but nothing to spark an interest.
The Lib Dems are in a perilous position. Worst-case scenario at the next election is that they lose a lot of voters as Brexit fades as an issue, and they are otherwise seen as irrelevant.
Davey could appear to be a safe pair of hands, and would be a reaction against the bolder Swinson approach. Is that enough?
Seems to me that the Lib Dems stand for non-ideological good governance, which superficially doesn't sound like a bad thing, but it means the status quo with minor adjustments - and no-one's buying that now.
What's the likely direction of politics in the next few years? My view is we are likely to see mass unemployment as businesses and industries restructure - essentially it will be the 80s again. I don't think, post-the initial measures taken, the UK Govt will follow a Japanese-style situation of letting Zombie companies continue to survive, more they will look at measures to support individuals during the transitions via income transfers etc.
Is there a role for the Lib Dems here? Areas such as transport and how / where people work are set to shift radically. Coming out of the crisis, there is likely to be a greater appreciation for the environment and our surroundings. And there will be a need to create jobs. A policy of massive investment in new transportation, clean forms of energy and new technologies would play to all of this and they are areas where the Lib Dems' brand naturally fits. But they need someone who can push that message through. Davey is not the person for that, Moran has too much baggage so I would take a bet on Cooper.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
With Sir Keir Starmer heading Labour, there's not much point to Ed Davey. The country doesn't need two dull serious middle aged male leaders trading off their experience.
That said, neither of the other two candidates look exactly compelling. He may still be the best of a bad job.
I think Davey would be more appealing to potential Tory --> LD switches at the next election. The LD/Labour front is almost non-existent:
Interesting views on the LD leadership. I've voted LD more often than other parties and was briefly a member, just long enough to vote for Huhne twice as leader, so my judgement is obviously not very good! I've also voted Labour, Green (EU only) and Conservative in my couple of decades of voting.
Davey would have been an excellent leader when Corbyn was still Labour leader. Would have been a safe home for Tories appalled by Brexit/Johnson and those more on the right of Labour appalled by Corbyn. I'd have voted LD at the last election under Davey. I'm very unlikely to vote Conservative under Johnson and would not vote Labour under Corbyn, but (policies pending) I've no problem voting Labour under Starmer. Davey, so far, doesn't convince me otherwise (although come election I'd look at both manifestos and might end up LD). Moran is a massive turn off, from what I've seen (and, for me, she should be a non-starter after the police incident - a man with that history would be, and rightly so). So if I was a LD member I'd be taking a close look at Cooper to see whether she might be worth a punt. Under Davey, I'd expect modest gains at the next election, maybe quite good gains if Johnson puts enough natural conservatives off and Starmer's manifesto is too far left for those people, but I don't think he really answers what the point of the LDs is, other than as an option for the moderate voters of both Labour and Conservatives when they're put off by their leaders.
Starmer will almost certainly need LD support to become PM, so Davey could end up Deputy PM to Starmer in 2024 as Clegg was to Cameron in 2010
Yep - and he's probably the one you could most easily see working with/appealing to Starmer. Trouble is, without articulating what the LDs add to that government, what's the point of me voting LD for a Labour government, rather than Labour for a Labour government (part of the reverse problem after the coalition). The leader needs to explain what LD means and what their requirements would be to work with either of the two main parties (those requirements might, in practice, rule out one party, but in principle they should be neutral and willing to work with whoever best gets the LD agenda implemented).
You voting Labour does not stop a Labour and LD coalition, Tory Remainers voting Tory again rather than LD though may stop it though, assuming they will still not vote Labour even with Starmer
I think Swinson's loss was very much the Lib Dems loss as well. She made some bad mistakes. She won't have the opportunity to learn from those mistakes, which I think she would have done. The Lib Dems big problem now is the tiny MP gene pool. They are all pavement politicians (literally going on about pavements), which helps them win seats in difficult circumstances. It doesn't give them any insight into the broader picture. The Lib Dems are also unfortunate that none of the Change UK candidates won their seats. It would have given them some genetic diversity.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
That does seem to be the case from what data there is. Quite how London went from worst to best remains unexplained.
Of the people who are outdoors there's probably a high prevalence of immunity. The initial outbreak here was bad. I know quite a few people who have had symptoms including myself. Multiply that by 9 for those who don't get symptoms and it would be surprising of 20-25% of the population of London has already had it, and that will be more concentrated among people who venture out.
That's my point. The way cases are falling away fast in areas of greater recorded infection suggests that there is already significant immunity - either natural, or acquired. A number of expert studies recently have come to this conclusion.
Yet the few random antibody testing exercises there have been so far have concluded that total infection rates (past + current) remain very low.
If the latter is the case in London, then its new infection rate shouldn't be falling away so quickly, given the anecdotal evidence that the lockdown there isn't tighter than for the rest of the country - if anything the reverse, with crowded tubes and crowded parks etc.
I was sitting on the bus next to Corbyn (or was it Boris, I can’t remember).
I realise my comment was open to satire, but I thought it worth posting as I think it might help explain why sometimes politicians that come over badly with the public, are backed by their own parties.
To me, as a non-supporter, Davey is the obvious choice - more pros less cons.
I suspect Layla Moran is more appealing to LDs, but perhaps only to them.
I can’t see the appeal of Davey. All of the coalition baggage, but nothing to spark an interest.
The Lib Dems are in a perilous position. Worst-case scenario at the next election is that they lose a lot of voters as Brexit fades as an issue, and they are otherwise seen as irrelevant.
Davey could appear to be a safe pair of hands, and would be a reaction against the bolder Swinson approach. Is that enough?
Seems to me that the Lib Dems stand for non-ideological good governance, which superficially doesn't sound like a bad thing, but it means the status quo with minor adjustments - and no-one's buying that now.
What's the likely direction of politics in the next few years? My view is we are likely to see mass unemployment as businesses and industries restructure - essentially it will be the 80s again. I don't think, post-the initial measures taken, the UK Govt will follow a Japanese-style situation of letting Zombie companies continue to survive, more they will look at measures to support individuals during the transitions via income transfers etc.
Is there a role for the Lib Dems here? Areas such as transport and how / where people work are set to shift radically. Coming out of the crisis, there is likely to be a greater appreciation for the environment and our surroundings. And there will be a need to create jobs. A policy of massive investment in new transportation, clean forms of energy and new technologies would play to all of this and they are areas where the Lib Dems' brand naturally fits. But they need someone who can push that message through. Davey is not the person for that, Moran has too much baggage so I would take a bet on Cooper.
Given their low base, the new LD leader should definitely be thinking about the themes of the next 10-20 years, in particular radical change on the environment, rather than the rights and wrongs of the coalition. A Green party based on evolution rather than revolution if you like.
I dont know enough about the candidates to have a strong view on which is best placed to succeed with something like that.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
It is not voodoo, it was a poll organised by OGH himself of posters.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
Its actually quite plausible.
Whenever people have tried to draw up lists of how they think people voted PB is remarkably similar to the general public across parties and Leave/Remain.
I think the only reason some leftwing posters tend to feel like they're not represented properly is they fail to recognise each other as left wing.
The first phrase of that tweet is very poorly chosen.
When it caught my eye, I read it as 'final solution', which indeed appears to have come to pass, and from the fragrant lips of the Secretary of State for Propaganda too boot!
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
It is not voodoo, it was a poll organised by OGH himself of posters.
We are due another though
It doesn't matter who organised it, its still voodoo.
The LDs are not electing a PM , they are electing someone who will get them noticed and can organise the back office so that they can win local and by-elections.
A big problem is that those two things - ability to rebuild an organisation from the nuts and bolts, and being a maverick attention grabber - so rarely reside in the same person.
And why Grimond is still revered within the party.
Joe Grimond was a class act. Even I could have voted for him.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
Its actually quite plausible.
Whenever people have tried to draw up lists of how they think people voted PB is remarkably similar to the general public across parties and Leave/Remain.
I think the only reason some leftwing posters tend to feel like they're not represented properly is they fail to recognise each other as left wing.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
I still think the LDs and Clegg get an unfairly hard time for their record in the coalition. It seems to be seen through the lens of them being equal partners who could/should have demanded a far greater price for their support. In reality, they had a seventh of the coalition's fire power, yet got some key policies on the slate with whipped support from the Tories (don't underestimate how much - eg - a referendum on voting reform cost Cameron with his own side). And from what's come since, especially on Europe, they clearly had a strong restraining influence on the further reaches of the Tory heartlands. While I take the point about potentially keeping Theresa May somewhere safe, Clegg as DPM and Danny Alexander as Chief Sec clearly wielded a lot of soft power alongside Cameron and Osborne.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
It is not voodoo, it was a poll organised by OGH himself of posters.
We are due another though
OGH of Posters? Is that what Mike would pick if he was ennobled?
Lord OGH of Posters!
It is no worse than some of the entitled currently snoozing away in the upper chamber
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
The tories are only interested in power, not stupid things like principles.
It's up to them - I'm not one - but what I will say is that in Layla Moran they have a politician with some X factor. If she became leader, and if Labour under Starmer go all timid and scared of offending the more reactionary strand of public opinion, it's not impossible that come the next election I would vote LD. Especially if they are also at that point the only party offering the sort of stonking tax rises needed to finance welfare and good public services on a sustainable basis.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
It is not voodoo, it was a poll organised by OGH himself of posters.
We are due another though
I just love that expression "with all due respect" as the reality is that it implies the complete opposite!!!!
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
I still think the LDs and Clegg get an unfairly hard time for their record in the coalition. It seems to be seen through the lens of them being equal partners who could/should have demanded a far greater price for their support. In reality, they had a seventh of the coalition's fire power, yet got some key policies on the slate with whipped support from the Tories (don't underestimate how much - eg - a referendum on voting reform cost Cameron with his own side). And from what's come since, especially on Europe, they clearly had a strong restraining influence on the further reaches of the Tory heartlands. While I take the point about potentially keeping Theresa May somewhere safe, Clegg as DPM and Danny Alexander as Chief Sec clearly wielded a lot of soft power alongside Cameron and Osborne.
You are entirely right but it doesnt play electorally to whinge about the unfairness. They need a new USP and message to sell to the country and start again.
But we were assured by so many that the government would be able to make it work, our experts are the best in the world and couldn't possibly be wrong.
This is going to cost an additional £20bn in economic support. If Hancock wasn't already the human shield he's just becone one. He will carry the can for pretty much al of the failures, they're all in his shop.
While I agree with you on this point, I think the far bigger failure is the delay in getting a large cohort of contract tracers trained and working across the country. It's perfectly possible to do the job without any app at all (as it has been done for many decades), and the training could have taken place well before testing capacity was available.
And the cost to the economy is quite possibly significantly more than £20bn.
This is what is so depressing. We let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As you say, recruitment and training could have started immediately. And even without the app, a simple paper checklist would have been a start. It might even have told us whether Cheltenham mattered a damn.
I don't think it's a matter of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It's that we have a Health Department that can only do one thing at a time.
The first thing they did was to increase capacity to treat people with ventilators. They did that well, but while they did that they completely failed on PPE, testing, care homes, contact tracing, etc.
Then we had the focus on testing numbers, and the number of tests is now way up, but the turnaround time is poor, and contact tracing is still a mess, etc.
Maybe now the focus will finally turn to contact tracing - but what will be neglected as they do so?
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
Its actually quite plausible.
Whenever people have tried to draw up lists of how they think people voted PB is remarkably similar to the general public across parties and Leave/Remain.
I think the only reason some leftwing posters tend to feel like they're not represented properly is they fail to recognise each other as left wing.
I think that is an interesting observation. There are definitely quite a few 'Liberals' as opposed to 'Social Democrats' on this site and as a demographic that doesn't surprise me that they are drawn to the site. I suspect that Tories will consider them 'leftwing' whereas they may not consider themselves so. I have been accused for being a leftie on several occasions by Tories whom I consider to be left of me when it comes to both business and freedoms.
So I think your observation is correct, although I dispute lots of us are actually leftwing (Catch 22). I'm definitely not.
But we were assured by so many that the government would be able to make it work, our experts are the best in the world and couldn't possibly be wrong.
This is going to cost an additional £20bn in economic support. If Hancock wasn't already the human shield he's just becone one. He will carry the can for pretty much al of the failures, they're all in his shop.
While I agree with you on this point, I think the far bigger failure is the delay in getting a large cohort of contract tracers trained and working across the country. It's perfectly possible to do the job without any app at all (as it has been done for many decades), and the training could have taken place well before testing capacity was available.
And the cost to the economy is quite possibly significantly more than £20bn.
This is what is so depressing. We let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As you say, recruitment and training could have started immediately. And even without the app, a simple paper checklist would have been a start. It might even have told us whether Cheltenham mattered a damn.
I don't think it's a matter of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It's that we have a Health Department that can only do one thing at a time.
The first thing they did was to increase capacity to treat people with ventilators. They did that well, but while they did that they completely failed on PPE, testing, care homes, contact tracing, etc.
Then we had the focus on testing numbers, and the number of tests is now way up, but the turnaround time is poor, and contact tracing is still a mess, etc.
Maybe now the focus will finally turn to contact tracing - but what will be neglected as they do so?
It is ludicrous that Hancock was expected to manage test track and trace in addition to his existing work and responsibilities. He had more on than anyone else, the PM was ill, why give it to him?
Gove, the most experienced cabinet minister (and supposedly one of the most effective) doesnt even have a department to run so could have given it far more time and attention.
*Which could eventually be the first (and probably only) military aircraft to be in service for a century.
The RR contender is made in Germany so no help to the Derwent Riviera anyway.
Have they replaced all the wing spars and boxes? Surely fatigue will be an issue by now? Or do they fly so little that they are not clocking up flight time?
The Buffs hail from an era (most of it was designed in the 40s) before CAD and FEA allowed aircraft to be just strong enough to meet the spec. So it was massively over-engineered. See also RC-135.
I remember flying an L13 Blanik on its last ever flight. It was a bit of a monster, but a very forgiving aircraft. After I was done with it, the wing spars had exceeded their mandated life and there was no way the cost could be justified to open the wing for replacement.
Comments
Fundamentally because of FPTP all parties get painted into two camps - Labour leaning or Tory leaning. In 2019 I was clear that neither candidate for PM was fit for office and wanted as hung a parliament as possible to reign in their excesses/madness. That isn't realistic - it will be one or the other until we have a proportional electoral system. That forces the LibDems into ultimately leaning one way or the other - and that is the debate which isn't easily resolved for you trying to be truly centrist.
Also I would support NOTA as a candidate on ballot papers anyway, and given the potential advantage I could see the Conservatives making such a change in future.
The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems.
Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers.
However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Davey would have been an excellent leader when Corbyn was still Labour leader. Would have been a safe home for Tories appalled by Brexit/Johnson and those more on the right of Labour appalled by Corbyn. I'd have voted LD at the last election under Davey. I'm very unlikely to vote Conservative under Johnson and would not vote Labour under Corbyn, but (policies pending) I've no problem voting Labour under Starmer. Davey, so far, doesn't convince me otherwise (although come election I'd look at both manifestos and might end up LD). Moran is a massive turn off, from what I've seen (and, for me, she should be a non-starter after the police incident - a man with that history would be, and rightly so). So if I was a LD member I'd be taking a close look at Cooper to see whether she might be worth a punt. Under Davey, I'd expect modest gains at the next election, maybe quite good gains if Johnson puts enough natural conservatives off and Starmer's manifesto is too far left for those people, but I don't think he really answers what the point of the LDs is, other than as an option for the moderate voters of both Labour and Conservatives when they're put off by their leaders.
Those countries where contract tracing is working best are also doing things like giving health authorities access to payments data, mobile phone signalling data, and access to CCTV. If you throw privacy out the window you can trace people quite effectively and you don't really need an "app".
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
There is a small social democrat organisation within the party that is calling for a return to focusing on core issues and less emphasis on fringe issues and some of the identity politics that is afflicting most parties nowadays. Whilst the latter is sometimes seen as liberal, it isn't liberalism as I have always understood it (which emphasises freedom of opportunity regardless of - and hence downplaying - identity).
My impression is that the coalition was a lot easier to bear for those LibDems facing Tories as their principal opponent, and much more difficult in Labour facing areas. It was the latter where LibDem council groups were pretty much wiped out.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/yougov-poll-on-lib-dem-leadership-ed-davey-is-a-country-mile-ahead-with-caveats-galore-63298.html
The fact he was in the coalition should not harm him either given the vast majority of LD target seats are Tory Remain seats now not Labour seats, if anything it could help him win over Tory Remainers
Even after everything that's happened, and is still happening in countries like Brazil, we have bright sparks popping up and saying "on anecdotal (i.e. scientifically worthless) evidence I think it's low (undefined) therefore we should be allowed to do X (reasoning unexplained)".
Davey could appear to be a safe pair of hands, and would be a reaction against the bolder Swinson approach. Is that enough?
Seems to me that the Lib Dems stand for non-ideological good governance, which superficially doesn't sound like a bad thing, but it means the status quo with minor adjustments - and no-one's buying that now.
The LD leader is important because they help shape the public debate and offer a different point of view without all the baggage of nationalism.
But the puzzle itself was not particularly hard. With so many constraints (once he had got over the initial shock of a grid with only 2 numbers) he was able to use only pretty basic techniques to clear the grid.
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
Didier Drogba at the Jorvik Viking Centre.
Ted Moult returning slug pellets at the Wyevale Garden Centre in Chester.
Pope John Paul II at the greyhound racing in Romford.
Kim Jong Un at a roller-disco in Arbroath.
Beat that.
It's perfectly possible to do the job without any app at all (as it has been done for many decades), and the training could have taken place well before testing capacity was available.
And the cost to the economy is quite possibly significantly more than £20bn.
Older PBers will remember we used to be blessed with the far-sighted @SeanT who forecast China's forthcoming hegemony following its huge investments in science, technology and infrastructure, contrasted with government cuts here, and warning us against the lazy (and a little bit racist) assumption that the Chinese could only copy and not innovate.
I would certainly consider the local situation as well as leaders and policies when deciding who to vote for.
As we've seen, 'a very low level' can get much bigger very quickly. But it's also relatively easy to stop that happening if you have the system in place.
What needs to be avoided is any second lockdown; we just cannot afford it.
These are all new things we didn't previously know and our policy needs to be updated to reflect them.
So it was really Social Democrats not liking the coalition with the Tories, which I guess I understand, whereas my differences are equal with both and I have agreements with both and some views that would be considered far to the left and far to the right by some if positioned on a straight line. And I consider both main parties to be too authoritarian.
That said, neither of the other two candidates look exactly compelling. He may still be the best of a bad job.
(Arguably the tuition fees pledge was foolish - it was certainly stupid to sign up to something as an absolute red line if it wasn't a personal red line).
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
I can’t see that many TV producers or journalists saying ‘let’s do a piece with Ed Davey, that will get the audience interested’.
I really don't care how politicians look - but how they present themselves is another matter.
And FWIW, a female version of Ken Clarke - an absolute mess who doesn't give a toss about their appearance, but clearly highly competent - would probably do quite well.
The ONS estimate of active cases in the UK at the moment is about 0.25% of the population. The estimate of R under normal circumstances implies cases will increase by a factor of something like 200 in a month. That would mean most of the population would be infected. We can't just go back to normal.
SOMETHING NEEDS TO STOP THE VIRUS SPREADING, OTHERWISE MOST OF THE POPULATION WILL BE INFECTED IN A MONTH.
What evidence do you have that any given relaxation of the restrictions won't raise R again? "They've done it in Germany and case numbers have contnued to drop." Well - the most recent daily number of new cases in Germany on WHO situation report is 797, and a week earlier it was 798. Not much of a drop, really. It looks pretty much like R=1, doesn't it?
But the main point is that Germany has so many fewer active cases than the UK. Testing and tracing contacts has an impact on the value of R. It's feasible in Germany, because those 800 cases a day are probably a much higher proportion of the true number than the 2500 or so in the UK.
So if that's your evidence, it's no evidence at all.
But what about the constituencies (there are still some?) where it's LD versus Labour? The LD leader needs to make the case for a coalition involving LD being better than a Lab majority. Or, say we had Cameron versus Corbyn still, in the several places where it's Con or LD, I'd be looking at why I should vote LD rather than Conservative.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1263374090733326340?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1263308048828858369?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1263305228302106625?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1263305641214558208?s=20
Is there a role for the Lib Dems here? Areas such as transport and how / where people work are set to shift radically. Coming out of the crisis, there is likely to be a greater appreciation for the environment and our surroundings. And there will be a need to create jobs. A policy of massive investment in new transportation, clean forms of energy and new technologies would play to all of this and they are areas where the Lib Dems' brand naturally fits. But they need someone who can push that message through. Davey is not the person for that, Moran has too much baggage so I would take a bet on Cooper.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
The model is said to have correctly predicted the popular vote in every election since 1948, other than 1968 and 1976.
Though xkcd applies to any predictions like this anyone decent will I think hope that the model is right.
Yet the few random antibody testing exercises there have been so far have concluded that total infection rates (past + current) remain very low.
If the latter is the case in London, then its new infection rate shouldn't be falling away so quickly, given the anecdotal evidence that the lockdown there isn't tighter than for the rest of the country - if anything the reverse, with crowded tubes and crowded parks etc.
I dont know enough about the candidates to have a strong view on which is best placed to succeed with something like that.
We are due another though
Whenever people have tried to draw up lists of how they think people voted PB is remarkably similar to the general public across parties and Leave/Remain.
I think the only reason some leftwing posters tend to feel like they're not represented properly is they fail to recognise each other as left wing.
Splitters!!
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Lord OGH of Posters!
It is no worse than some of the entitled currently snoozing away in the upper chamber
It's up to them - I'm not one - but what I will say is that in Layla Moran they have a politician with some X factor. If she became leader, and if Labour under Starmer go all timid and scared of offending the more reactionary strand of public opinion, it's not impossible that come the next election I would vote LD. Especially if they are also at that point the only party offering the sort of stonking tax rises needed to finance welfare and good public services on a sustainable basis.
The first thing they did was to increase capacity to treat people with ventilators. They did that well, but while they did that they completely failed on PPE, testing, care homes, contact tracing, etc.
Then we had the focus on testing numbers, and the number of tests is now way up, but the turnaround time is poor, and contact tracing is still a mess, etc.
Maybe now the focus will finally turn to contact tracing - but what will be neglected as they do so?
Are you trying to suggest it’s not an income tax? Different thing.
However, its big test is still to come. So far they have incentivised inactivity (while staving off economic meltdown).
Can Sunak work out how to incentivise productive employment, as the current schemes cannot work for much longer ?
So I think your observation is correct, although I dispute lots of us are actually leftwing (Catch 22). I'm definitely not.
Gove, the most experienced cabinet minister (and supposedly one of the most effective) doesnt even have a department to run so could have given it far more time and attention.