No one is going to change their vote based on Cummings, what they will change their vote for is the idea that the Tories have a set of rules that they can ignore when it suits them. That narrative will build up over the next 4 years.
Why will that narrative build up? This story is fading from the news already.
If further incidents happen to build the narrative up then those further incidents also play a role in people changing their votes. Cummings alone won't have been the problem. If no further incidents occur then the narrative will move on to the news of the future.
Every time there is a minor or technical breach of some procedural rule it comes back to this. Ultimately the government made the wrong decision, whether or not you agree I know they did, I'm pretty sure they know they did but figure the political cost was worth it. I think you're probably the only person who is trying to legitimately argue that it wasn't.
Additionally, a poll lead of just 3 after the saga unfolded vs 10 before shows it is shifting votes.
Polls are ephemeral nonsense midterm. I don't believe them when HYUFD wields them as the gospel truth, nor do I believe them when anyone else does.
If you see me wielding polls as the gospel truth then feel free to call me a hypocrite but I don't, they're a snapshot they don't represent votes.
You don't need polls because your view of how everyone in the UK will vote is accurate, to 0.49%,
I never said that.
What percentage of the public do you think will vote differently in 2024 solely because of Cummings?
Jeez it really does need to be drummed into you.
I really enjoy discussing stuff with you because you are rigorous and relentless and that is good, in a Socratic way, it means people examine their own arguments because you won't let anything slip by.
But here you have got it wrong. As has been pointed out to you by several posters, and me at 9.12am, the point about Cummings is that he will feed the narrative of one law for them. That is toxic and yes, due to Cummings.
And as I said that narrative only works if its one story of many, in which case this one story in isolation isn't that significant - it could have happened without this story and with the other ones.
If similar doesn't occur in the future the narrative won't build, the topic will move on.
That is a perennial and ridiculous hare and tortoise type fallacy which is forever cropping up on pb. You think the answer is "none" and then you say "Gotcha! I win the argument! But that is wrong. There are possibly people who would otherwise have voted tory but vote against them despite loving all their policies, solely because of Cummings. A tiny if non-nil set, and you think its tininess wins you the argument. But there are also millions of votes which might at this stage go either way which are influenced by more events than just Cummings. They aren't however influenced by many events (we know this because of polls asking pe grople what current political stories they are aware of) so let's say two million votes switch for Cummings and two other reasons. No rational accounting system differentiates between the Cummings cost of 1/3 * 2m or 666,666 votes and the hypothetical case where 666,666 voters switch purely because of Cummings and nothing else. The cost is identical.
I don't believe for one second millions are going to change their votes because of Cummings.
In 4 years time Cummings driving will be ancient history. How the government deals with the next 4 years, with the economic costs of post-COVID19, how the end to the Brexit transition plays out, the state of the economy, the state of the NHS etc, etc, etc are what is going to shape the next election.
OK, so you have retreated from "it won't be the sole factor" to "it won't be a factor at all." You are wrong about that. It is also disingenuous to refer to "Cummings driving"; this is about the supine, dishonest and incompetent way Johnson managed the fallout over Cummings driving. And at the very least it has altered the default position for a non zero number of voters from Vote tory in 2024 unless Johnson screws up, to Not vote tory in 2024 unless Johnson seriously impresses on the other factors you refer to.
A Beta website for those interested in Covid-19 data. It's not designed for small screens and is running on a not very powerful server, so I hope it's popular but not too popular. Any helpful comments to admin@verify-it.co.uk.
Statue ethics - I'm probably not alone in having no idea who 95% of the statues that I see represent, so starting point is that I don't care. If someone is widely admired by some and hated by others (Lenin in Ukraine seems a good example, and arguably Thatcher is too, but not Churchill), it seems fair to move the statue to somewhere out of the way where people who were fond of them can go and see it without winding up the others - putting the statue in a derisive theme park is trolling, though. Where the statue commemorates people now universally seen as disreputable - Jimmy Saville's elaborate gravestone for instance - then removal seems best. Arguably a slaver who later gave money to charity is in the second category, not the first.
The issue of direct action vs democratic process is separate, and I'm usually not keen on the former, but I won't get worked up about a hunk of stone.
I don't get worked up about hunks of stone but I do about the rule of law. A campaign to remove a statue using democratic processes because with modern sensibilities the good that the person did was outweighed by the bad is absolutely fair enough. No problem with that at all. Just because a statue has been there over 100 years doesn't give it any rights. It is, ultimately, a hunk of stone. But mob rule and vandalism are very bad things whether directed at a hunk of stone, a shop, some politician or 10 Downing Street. It should not be tolerated.
I’m not a fan of mob rule. I’m also not a fan of apathetic majorities riding roughshod indefinitely over minorities. Majoritarianism usually has an ugly ending.
There are other examples of aggressive majoritarianism just now, I suspect, but the most obvious example is eluding me.
Majoritarianism is the weak point of democracy, I agree. There is an onus on the majority to find the least offensive or deleterious way of achieving what they want whilst respecting the views of the minority. If they do this there is a much better chance of the majority view becoming the basis of a new consensus on which society can move forward. If they don't then society is divided and weakened.
If there is a weak point then let us hear from the campaigners as to which statues and street names they'd like to see changed and why. Let's hear what they'd like to see replace them, and put it into a manifesto that we can debate and consider.
Let's have some polling on it. Let's see how different groups feel about it. Let's test the boundaries of public opinion, and hear the pros and cons from all walks of life.
Let's have a royal or independent commission. Let's hear from all sides and parts of the community. Let's understand what really holds people back and how things make them feel, and what does not. Let's hear what their priorities and solutions are. What matters and what does not.
Because so far the language seems to be one of eternal conflict: targeting "all forms" of racism, for example, without saying what these forms are, whether they are, why they should be removed, and what takes its place. There's no sign of a positive proposal of what would represent peace and a new stability, just the rhetoric of the fight.
We still don't know who was involved in pulling this statute down, or why - still less what their motives were, who they purported to represent, and indeed whether they were represent of those the groups they purported to represent.
That's why we have democracy, for the dialogue and understanding. Not mob rule, where the most aggressive and organised win through strength of violence.
Starmer steering well clear of wasting political capital on pushing for an extension to the transition period.
He seems determined to move on from the Remain v Leave debate which is a good thing . I think the vast majority of Labours remain voters understand that although Starmer might push for a closer relationship with the EU if he was PM there will be no talk of rejoining and any closer ties won’t include FOM .
Interesting how enthusiastically Starmer seems to be dumping his Remainer / metropolitan lefty base. It's the correct electoral strategy overall, but losing your base can be dangerous if they start asking 'Wait, what's in it for me now?'
Brexit is done. His “Remainer” / Metropolitan lefty base has other concerns.
I am sure Scott, Alastair and other remainers will be delighted Starmer is not going to stop Brexit
Since I have never wanted Brexit stopped, that post says much more about your Stockholm syndrome than it does about me.
It is a magisterial piece and seems to me the answer to Mr Ed's delightfully provocative thread header. The attraction of Trump in 2016 was that he was the most anti-establishment candidate I can recall being elected, completely outside the Washington consensus and attractive to a country frankly disgusted with its political class.
The reality has been different. The corruption of principles, ethical standards, institutions and common decency combined with rank incompetence has been remarkable. There was an opportunity for Washington to show that it was not as bad as the voters of 2016 thought. Instead we have riots, lawlessness and chaos. The failure of the Democrats to find anyone who could properly articulate fundamental values is deeply depressing. I fear for the US, I really do.
That is a great article - linked first by @Nigelb - and I would urge in particular two groups of people on here to read it. (1) Those who still think of Trump as an essentially harmless joke figure. (2) Those who think for all his monstrosities it's a difficult choice between him and Biden.
What would be the reaction if someone had been seriously injured or even killed by hauling that thing down? Tipping heavy bronze objects into crowds of people should not be permitted!
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
Yeah, if only those uppity BAMEs would know their place.
You don't think that a society reevaluating its cultural symbols (which is what these civic statues are) and coming to the conclusion that such statues might foster adverse attitudes on the part of both the power-holders and the oppressed is beneficial? And that removal might reinforce the message that our present societal values are attempting to improve on what came before?
Granted, I'd surely prefer this done by orderly consent than by mob rule, but you seem to be suggesting that the outcome rather than the process is at fault.
They should be told to piss off, when they start handing over US criminals for trial we can do the same. One way traffic with these arses, they protect their crooks and refuse to have any justice whatsoever, time UK got a backbone and told them to jog on.
I still think the solution is we hand over Prince Andrew and they return that woman who killed Harry Dunn.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
@Philip_Thompson are you happy with the mob pulling down the Churchill statue in Parliament Square and throwing it in the Thames?
No. Churchill was a hero who led the country against fascism he didn't support it. If his statue was pulled down I'd want it to be taken out of the Thames, repaired if damaged and put back up.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
Agreed. Churchill was undoubtedly a racist, but he also took a principled stand against the Nazis and led the country to a hard won victory in WW2. There is no comparison with Colston, whose only achievement was to make a load of money from the greatest crime in history. A statue of Churchill is not put up principally to celebrate his racist views. Whereas the Colson statue is put up to celebrate his role in the slave trade and the money he obtained from slavery, some of which he distributed more widely in his home town. In the US context it's like comparing George Washington with Jefferson Davis. Washington was a slave owner, but he also led his country to independence and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Whereas Davis led a rebellion to preserve slavery. A statue of Washington is not a statue celebrating slavery, a statue of Davis arguably is.
Lot of bollox in there, you seem to just make things suit your own thinking rather than reality. Guy you like slaver but good, guy you don't like , slaver and bad bad man
The point isn't whether I like someone or not. FWIW I don't particularly "like" Churchill or Washington. But I don't think they should have their statues taken down. A statue is never just honouring a person, it is honouring their deeds or ideas or what they represent. What does Colston's statue honour? His role in the slave trade and the money he made from it. Nothing else. If he hadn't been a wealthy slaver, there would be no statue. What does Churchill's statue honour? His role as war leader, and indirectly all those who sacrificed and fought in WW2. His unpleasant opinions on many things (including working class people in this country) are incidental to the existence of the statue. I don't think we can retrospectively apply our own moral code to people in the past. But I equally think that statues that honour something as morally repugnant as slavery simply have no place and should be removed. To keep it up is an insult to the descendants of slaves who had to walk past it every day, including the Mayor of Bristol who said as much on R4 this morning.
I don't care a jot about any of the statues but the principle that we should remove stuff because of some imaginary link with people 200 - 300 years ago is absolutely mental. Time they got over it and got a life, no-one remembers it and 99.99% will have no clue who their ancestors were at that point so it is just all bollox..
A deadly pandemic, a collapsing economy, failing Brexit trade talks, a severe drought, an escalating culture war ... what a time to have a bone idle, lying, charlatan, his psychopathic, unaccountable “adviser” and a cabinet of third-rate incompetents in charge of things.
Yes and everyone is whining about something that happened 300 years ago , crazy.
Statue ethics - I'm probably not alone in having no idea who 95% of the statues that I see represent, so starting point is that I don't care. If someone is widely admired by some and hated by others (Lenin in Ukraine seems a good example, and arguably Thatcher is too, but not Churchill), it seems fair to move the statue to somewhere out of the way where people who were fond of them can go and see it without winding up the others - putting the statue in a derisive theme park is trolling, though. Where the statue commemorates people now universally seen as disreputable - Jimmy Saville's elaborate gravestone for instance - then removal seems best. Arguably a slaver who later gave money to charity is in the second category, not the first.
The issue of direct action vs democratic process is separate, and I'm usually not keen on the former, but I won't get worked up about a hunk of stone.
I don't get worked up about hunks of stone but I do about the rule of law. A campaign to remove a statue using democratic processes because with modern sensibilities the good that the person did was outweighed by the bad is absolutely fair enough. No problem with that at all. Just because a statue has been there over 100 years doesn't give it any rights. It is, ultimately, a hunk of stone. But mob rule and vandalism are very bad things whether directed at a hunk of stone, a shop, some politician or 10 Downing Street. It should not be tolerated.
I’m not a fan of mob rule. I’m also not a fan of apathetic majorities riding roughshod indefinitely over minorities. Majoritarianism usually has an ugly ending.
There are other examples of aggressive majoritarianism just now, I suspect, but the most obvious example is eluding me.
Majoritarianism is the weak point of democracy, I agree. There is an onus on the majority to find the least offensive or deleterious way of achieving what they want whilst respecting the views of the minority. If they do this there is a much better chance of the majority view becoming the basis of a new consensus on which society can move forward. If they don't then society is divided and weakened.
We don't even have majoritarianism in the UK. Under FPTP we have pluralitarianism. The majority were against Thatcher. The majority were against Blair. And in Scotland the majority are against the SNP.
Utter and total bollox on Scotland. Another expert who does not know the difference between his arse and his elbow.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
The UK is a flawed democracy.
All democracies are flawed in some way. Doesn't mean we should be comparing them unfavourably to the sorts of dictatorships Cyclefree is referring to.
P-Squared is obviously laying the framework of an "At Least I Did Something" defence for the inevitable inquiries (there is definitely going to be more than one).
Comments
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1269915556657987584?s=20
Any helpful comments to admin@verify-it.co.uk.
https://verify-it-c19data.co.uk/
Let's have some polling on it. Let's see how different groups feel about it. Let's test the boundaries of public opinion, and hear the pros and cons from all walks of life.
Let's have a royal or independent commission. Let's hear from all sides and parts of the community. Let's understand what really holds people back and how things make them feel, and what does not. Let's hear what their priorities and solutions are. What matters and what does not.
Because so far the language seems to be one of eternal conflict: targeting "all forms" of racism, for example, without saying what these forms are, whether they are, why they should be removed, and what takes its place. There's no sign of a positive proposal of what would represent peace and a new stability, just the rhetoric of the fight.
We still don't know who was involved in pulling this statute down, or why - still less what their motives were, who they purported to represent, and indeed whether they were represent of those the groups they purported to represent.
That's why we have democracy, for the dialogue and understanding. Not mob rule, where the most aggressive and organised win through strength of violence.
Post of the Month - subsection: wishful thinking
Yep, everyoneone involved was white, yessirree.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
You don't think that a society reevaluating its cultural symbols (which is what these civic statues are) and coming to the conclusion that such statues might foster adverse attitudes on the part of both the power-holders and the oppressed is beneficial? And that removal might reinforce the message that our present societal values are attempting to improve on what came before?
Granted, I'd surely prefer this done by orderly consent than by mob rule, but you seem to be suggesting that the outcome rather than the process is at fault.