Probably not the best example given Milo was destroyed by his own comments about paedophilia being acceptable. That was the root cause of him losing his job and most of his support.
Edit: I see Robert has already made the same point.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Your alternative is that the government of the day should choose who gets banned (or not banned) by commercial organisations.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
No, for goodness' sake - I think the government should _prevent_ users from being banned by monopolistic media platforms. That's it.
Wait?
No, that's not what you're proposing.
Because, presumably, Twitter would still be allowed to ban some people. If you posted child pornography, or called for Mitch McConnell to be killed, then you would get banned.
What you're proposing is that the government of the day chooses who Twitter allows on their platform.
As I said in my longer post, the only proviso would be that they would be allowed to ban users who break the law, which is determined - as always - by said government of the day. Post legal material, and your free speech is protected. Post illegal material, threats of violence etc, and you're banned.
Yes, it's a degree of government interference in business, which is generally undesirable. But it's not an excessive degree, and a little bit of lateral thinking should tell these companies that allowing global social media to be dominated by the left may lead to far more actively anti-business governments in the future.
It is an excessive degree.
If Twitter only wants to show pro-Antifa posts or pro-Loyal Boys posts, that's their choice.
Governments around the world dictate that businesses cannot refuse service to legal customers on the basis of certain characteristics - as in the famous case of a homosexual couple being turned away from a cake shop, for instance. So far, the characteristics protected in law are generally those that are innate and immutable (although religion is sometimes protected, and that is neither innate nor immutable).
What I'm arguing for is that in the case of social media platforms with more than x million users, political affiliation should - in effect - become a legally-protected characteristic (but which does not protect the posting of illegal material).
I know I'm not going to convince you, and that's fine. But I don't think it's an inherently inconceivable idea.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
The longer this takes the worse it is for Harris. She would be obvious candidate apart from the list of problematic cases when she was DA and Attorney General...
Gould, who read philosophy and divinity at Cambridge,....no wonder he has f##k all idea about tech.
We convinced the likes of Demis from Deepmind to sit on SAGE, but I bet nobody asked him about this app. They only have ~600 PhDs working for him, I am sure they could have run through the tech stack with those who needed to know.
I read Philosophy at Cambridge and have started a number of very successful technology companies.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
This accords with my personal anecdote. People I know now use Facebook PASSIVELY. There is less interaction, fewer posts.
My friends are a smart tech savvy bunch so they might be pioneers here
As for my 24 year old wife and her friends, none of them go near Facebook. I think it is in trouble in the medium term, tho they also own WhatsApp and Instagram of course
I find this Facebook is "for old people" stuff f*cking weird.
I first signed up in 2006, when I was 24. It was cutting edge stuff.
I'm now.. um, 38.
Old?
Fuck off.
I was told a few years ago that the average facebook user was 39. I suspect that has gone up now.
Insta is my go to for social media now. FB is good for politics, and advertising (seriously cheap). When all my aunts joined, it somehow lost its patina....
Facebook is a veteran geriatrics game nowadays. Few people under the age of 97 use it.
Pulling down statues of Washington = Trump win in November.
What if reasonable people are successful in getting reasonable but hitherto surprising points across, putting Trump totally at sea? I like the idea of renaming NY and Washington.
If it comes down to mass buying in to the idea of saving the country from extreme left, unAmerican, violent-against-property iconoclasts - in other words a McCarthyist surge - the mass of people who vote for Trump would have to want Trump to CRUSH the said menace. "Vote Trump and Kill for Keeping Statues", in other words? Are ~46% of voters so crazy? If so, it's a walk in the park for Trump...but it isn't. He's a provocative moron.
I think I agree with you although I honestly found your posting confusing to follow.
But no matter. I think this idea that the riots will play into Trump's hands is dead wrong. The only way that happens is if Biden explicitly endorses the rioting and vandalism - not just the BLM marches themselves which I get the impression most normal Americans sympathise with at least in principle but the actual violence.
And Biden is not going to do that. Trump is so distrusted that any claims he makes about Biden supporting violence are going to fall on deaf ears and risk the obvious retort that it is Trump's own actions which are inciting violence.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Your alternative is that the government of the day should choose who gets banned (or not banned) by commercial organisations.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
No, for goodness' sake - I think the government should _prevent_ users from being banned by monopolistic media platforms. That's it.
Wait?
No, that's not what you're proposing.
Because, presumably, Twitter would still be allowed to ban some people. If you posted child pornography, or called for Mitch McConnell to be killed, then you would get banned.
What you're proposing is that the government of the day chooses who Twitter allows on their platform.
As I said in my longer post, the only proviso would be that they would be allowed to ban users who break the law, which is determined - as always - by said government of the day. Post legal material, and your free speech is protected. Post illegal material, threats of violence etc, and you're banned.
Yes, it's a degree of government interference in business, which is generally undesirable. But it's not an excessive degree, and a little bit of lateral thinking should tell these companies that allowing global social media to be dominated by the left may lead to far more actively anti-business governments in the future.
It is an excessive degree.
If Twitter only wants to show pro-Antifa posts or pro-Loyal Boys posts, that's their choice.
But it is a problem when these platforms have entirely superseded normal media. Denying this is childish sophistry
Twitter is used (sporadically) by 22% of US adults. If they average an hour a month on it (and that might very well be an over-estimate), that's 65 million hours of Twitter usage a month in the US.
Fox News gets between 300,000 and four million viewers depending on the time of day. In a single day it probably gets a cumulative 25 to 30 million hours of viewer time.
So, Twitter's monthly usage is about the same as Fox News managed yesterday and today.
It's not some insane monopoly. It's a failing commercial organisation that the government should stay away from.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
The longer this takes the worse it is for Harris. She would be obvious candidate apart from the list of problematic cases when she was DA and Attorney General...
But who was the last Veep candidate appointed directly as an ordinary representative from the House? Was it Ferraro?
Not a happy precedent. And I think Demings has even less campaigning experience than she did. Moreover, her back story is hardly perfect - on her watch there were all sorts of problems in the Orlando police including violence, brutality and allegations of coverups.
I really think passing over Harris would be a bad move. Sure, the Tea Party mob will hate her. But they’ll hate whoever’s picked.
Pulling down statues of Washington = Trump win in November.
What if reasonable people are successful in getting reasonable but hitherto surprising points across, putting Trump totally at sea? I like the idea of renaming NY and Washington.
If it comes down to mass buying in to the idea of saving the country from extreme left, unAmerican, violent-against-property iconoclasts - in other words a McCarthyist surge - the mass of people who vote for Trump would have to want Trump to CRUSH the said menace. "Vote Trump and Kill for Keeping Statues", in other words? Are ~46% of voters so crazy? If so, it's a walk in the park for Trump...but it isn't. He's a provocative moron.
This is a fair point.
A clever, stealthy, articulate, non-demented populist Republican candidate - think of an American Pym Fortuyn - could easily ride the backlash against the WokeMania and achieve a stunning victory in November.
The Democrats are lucky that they face a populist right wing candidate so inept and inarticulate he cannot exploit issues that offer enormous, populist right wing leverage.
Most people don't agree with you that black people protesting against police brutality are maniacal.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
This accords with my personal anecdote. People I know now use Facebook PASSIVELY. There is less interaction, fewer posts.
My friends are a smart tech savvy bunch so they might be pioneers here
As for my 24 year old wife and her friends, none of them go near Facebook. I think it is in trouble in the medium term, tho they also own WhatsApp and Instagram of course
I find this Facebook is "for old people" stuff f*cking weird.
I first signed up in 2006, when I was 24. It was cutting edge stuff.
I'm now.. um, 38.
Old?
Fuck off.
I was told a few years ago that the average facebook user was 39. I suspect that has gone up now.
Insta is my go to for social media now. FB is good for politics, and advertising (seriously cheap). When all my aunts joined, it somehow lost its patina....
Facebook is a veteran geriatrics game nowadays. Few people under the age of 97 use it.
Housewivesbook! I'm on it! Nothing wrong with social media for the middle aged and upwards to share photos, I think
Twitter is for argumentative nerds only... I am also on that of course. But the amount of importance we attach to it on here explains why the bubble get election results wrong so often - only politically engaged people are on it, they are talking to themselves... none of my mates are on it and my girlfriend just thinks it is horrible and cant understand why anyone uses it at all
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
The longer this takes the worse it is for Harris. She would be obvious candidate apart from the list of problematic cases when she was DA and Attorney General...
But who was the last Veep candidate appointed directly as an ordinary representative from the House? Was it Ferraro?
Not a happy precedent. And I think Demings has even less campaigning experience than she did. Moreover, her back story is hardly perfect - on her watch there were all sorts of problems in the Orlando police including violence, brutality and allegations of coverups.
I really think passing over Harris would be a bad move. Sure, the Tea Party mob will hate her. But they’ll hate whoever’s picked.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
?
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
Yes, you are agreeing with the point I just made!
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
I would have thought that people were more dazzled in those distant days. There was so much more respect and deference to such figures. Nowadays we are far more familiar with them , and this has bred widespread contempt.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
The longer this takes the worse it is for Harris. She would be obvious candidate apart from the list of problematic cases when she was DA and Attorney General...
But who was the last Veep candidate appointed directly as an ordinary representative from the House? Was it Ferraro?
Not a happy precedent. And I think Demings has even less campaigning experience than she did. Moreover, her back story is hardly perfect - on her watch there were all sorts of problems in the Orlando police including violence, brutality and allegations of coverups.
I really think passing over Harris would be a bad move. Sure, the Tea Party mob will hate her. But they’ll hate whoever’s picked.
VPs...
Pence: Senator Biden: Senator Cheney: Former Sec Defence and Former Member House of Representatives Gore: Senator Quayle: Senator Bush: CIA and Former Member House of Representatives
Facebook was good until the boomers took it over, it's been dying slowly since then. It won't surprise me to see it gone in 10 years, just as MySpace and Bebo before it.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
The longer this takes the worse it is for Harris. She would be obvious candidate apart from the list of problematic cases when she was DA and Attorney General...
But who was the last Veep candidate appointed directly as an ordinary representative from the House? Was it Ferraro?
Not a happy precedent. And I think Demings has even less campaigning experience than she did. Moreover, her back story is hardly perfect - on her watch there were all sorts of problems in the Orlando police including violence, brutality and allegations of coverups.
I really think passing over Harris would be a bad move. Sure, the Tea Party mob will hate her. But they’ll hate whoever’s picked.
Facebook was good until the boomers took it over, it's been dying slowly since then. It won't surprise me to see it gone in 10 years, just as MySpace and Bebo before it.
Nah. It would have died if the Boomers hadn't taken it over. Now it is a key communications network for millions rather than a cool toy for the young. And those millions spend real money and are a far better demographic for advertisers.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
The longer this takes the worse it is for Harris. She would be obvious candidate apart from the list of problematic cases when she was DA and Attorney General...
But who was the last Veep candidate appointed directly as an ordinary representative from the House? Was it Ferraro?
Not a happy precedent. And I think Demings has even less campaigning experience than she did. Moreover, her back story is hardly perfect - on her watch there were all sorts of problems in the Orlando police including violence, brutality and allegations of coverups.
I really think passing over Harris would be a bad move. Sure, the Tea Party mob will hate her. But they’ll hate whoever’s picked.
The problem is that a classic road to politics - Lawyer->DA->political office - has become toxic overnight.
Suddenly, the old ImALiberalButPutCrackDealersAwayFor1000Years pitch has no buyers.
Facebook was good until the boomers took it over, it's been dying slowly since then. It won't surprise me to see it gone in 10 years, just as MySpace and Bebo before it.
Nah. It would have died if the Boomers hadn't taken it over. Now it is a key communications network for millions rather than a cool toy for the young. And those millions spend real money and are a far better demographic for advertisers.
I genuinely think as I said, it's likely in 10 years it will be forgotten as Bebo and MySpace have been too.
Probably not the best example given Milo was destroyed by his own comments about paedophilia being acceptable. That was the root cause of him losing his job and most of his support.
Edit: I see Robert has already made the same point.
The idea that the first US president and primary Founding Father causes ‘harm’ just by being remembered is a direct attack on America’s self perception.
This is a really pivotal moment
Oh behave.
That member of antifa George W Bush said several years ago that every day that America engaged in slavery and segregation was a day that America wasn't true to itself.
The idea that the first US president and primary Founding Father causes ‘harm’ just by being remembered is a direct attack on America’s self perception.
This is a really pivotal moment
If Trump had an IQ above room temperature - Covid or not - he could have been on track to win a Reaganesque landslide in November.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Your alternative is that the government of the day should choose who gets banned (or not banned) by commercial organisations.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
No, for goodness' sake - I think the government should _prevent_ users from being banned by monopolistic media platforms. That's it.
Wait?
No, that's not what you're proposing.
Because, presumably, Twitter would still be allowed to ban some people. If you posted child pornography, or called for Mitch McConnell to be killed, then you would get banned.
What you're proposing is that the government of the day chooses who Twitter allows on their platform.
As I said in my longer post, the only proviso would be that they would be allowed to ban users who break the law, which is determined - as always - by said government of the day. Post legal material, and your free speech is protected. Post illegal material, threats of violence etc, and you're banned.
Yes, it's a degree of government interference in business, which is generally undesirable. But it's not an excessive degree, and a little bit of lateral thinking should tell these companies that allowing global social media to be dominated by the left may lead to far more actively anti-business governments in the future.
It is an excessive degree.
If Twitter only wants to show pro-Antifa posts or pro-Loyal Boys posts, that's their choice.
But it is a problem when these platforms have entirely superseded normal media. Denying this is childish sophistry
Twitter is used (sporadically) by 22% of US adults. If they average an hour a month on it (and that might very well be an over-estimate), that's 65 million hours of Twitter usage a month in the US.
Fox News gets between 300,000 and four million viewers depending on the time of day. In a single day it probably gets a cumulative 25 to 30 million hours of viewer time.
So, Twitter's monthly usage is about the same as Fox News managed yesterday and today.
It's not some insane monopoly. It's a failing commercial organisation that the government should stay away from.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
?
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
Yes, you are agreeing with the point I just made!
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
I would have thought that people were more dazzled in those distant days. There was so much more respect and deference to such figures. Nowadays we are far more familiar with them , and this has bred widespread contempt.
Facebook was good until the boomers took it over, it's been dying slowly since then. It won't surprise me to see it gone in 10 years, just as MySpace and Bebo before it.
Nah. It would have died if the Boomers hadn't taken it over. Now it is a key communications network for millions rather than a cool toy for the young. And those millions spend real money and are a far better demographic for advertisers.
I genuinely think as I said, it's likely in 10 years it will be forgotten as Bebo and MySpace have been too.
It's dying, very slowly.
I don't think anyone is disputing that you 'genuinely think' the views espoused in your posts, I think they just think you're wrong.
I was wondering what our monthly usage is. There are probably only a few thousand regulars, but some of them manage 40 or 50 hours a month on the site.
The idea that the first US president and primary Founding Father causes ‘harm’ just by being remembered is a direct attack on America’s self perception.
This is a really pivotal moment
If Trump had an IQ above room temperature - Covid or not - he could have been on track to win a Reaganesque landslide in November.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
The longer this takes the worse it is for Harris. She would be obvious candidate apart from the list of problematic cases when she was DA and Attorney General...
But who was the last Veep candidate appointed directly as an ordinary representative from the House? Was it Ferraro?
Not a happy precedent. And I think Demings has even less campaigning experience than she did. Moreover, her back story is hardly perfect - on her watch there were all sorts of problems in the Orlando police including violence, brutality and allegations of coverups.
I really think passing over Harris would be a bad move. Sure, the Tea Party mob will hate her. But they’ll hate whoever’s picked.
Paul Ryan 2012.
Thanks. Surprised to realise that. Hadn’t realised he didn’t become Speaker until later.
The idea that the first US president and primary Founding Father causes ‘harm’ just by being remembered is a direct attack on America’s self perception.
This is a really pivotal moment
If Trump had an IQ above room temperature - Covid or not - he could have been on track to win a Reaganesque landslide in November.
If Trump had 18 wheels, he would be a truck.
Not just any truck, the bigly bestest truck ever, everybody would be saying so.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
?
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
Yes, you are agreeing with the point I just made!
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
I would have thought that people were more dazzled in those distant days. There was so much more respect and deference to such figures. Nowadays we are far more familiar with them , and this has bred widespread contempt.
Haha they keep getting elected!!!
Attlee beat Churchill twice. Heath beat Wilson in 1970. Douglas-Home ran Wilson very close in 1964 . Major defeated Kinnock in 1992.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
The longer this takes the worse it is for Harris. She would be obvious candidate apart from the list of problematic cases when she was DA and Attorney General...
But who was the last Veep candidate appointed directly as an ordinary representative from the House? Was it Ferraro?
Not a happy precedent. And I think Demings has even less campaigning experience than she did. Moreover, her back story is hardly perfect - on her watch there were all sorts of problems in the Orlando police including violence, brutality and allegations of coverups.
I really think passing over Harris would be a bad move. Sure, the Tea Party mob will hate her. But they’ll hate whoever’s picked.
Paul Ryan 2012.
Thanks. Surprised to realise that. Hadn’t realised he didn’t become Speaker until later.
The idea that the first US president and primary Founding Father causes ‘harm’ just by being remembered is a direct attack on America’s self perception.
This is a really pivotal moment
Oh behave.
That member of antifa George W Bush said several years ago that every day that America engaged in slavery and segregation was a day that America wasn't true to itself.
Of far more significance than this is the continuing disaster that is covid-19 in the United States. Apple are now closing shops in Florida and Arizona, two states where case numbers are rising sharply.
FL Governor de Santis is claiming that since most of those infected are young (apparently, based on the median age of infection falling), it's nothing to worry about as these younger people will all be fine.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
?
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
Yes, you are agreeing with the point I just made!
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
I would have thought that people were more dazzled in those distant days. There was so much more respect and deference to such figures. Nowadays we are far more familiar with them , and this has bred widespread contempt.
Haha they keep getting elected!!!
Attlee beat Churchill twice. Heath beat Wilson in 1970. Douglas-Home ran Wilson very close in 1964 . Major defeated Kinnock in 1992.
The idea that the first US president and primary Founding Father causes ‘harm’ just by being remembered is a direct attack on America’s self perception.
This is a really pivotal moment
If Trump had an IQ above room temperature - Covid or not - he could have been on track to win a Reaganesque landslide in November.
If Trump had 18 wheels, he would be a truck.
Not just any truck, the bigly bestest truck ever, everybody would be saying so.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Trump and Brexit are the only 2 instances that really conform to your theory and we are about to get a judgement on the former very shortly.
GE2019. You couldn't move on Twitter for red roses, Labour smears, and 'long lines in London'. For all the good it did them
Winning is not like a football match, it is not an end in itself. What matters is what you deliver once you have achieved power.
If a Johnson government and Brexit end up as being as big a shambles as Trump after 4 years of being in office what was the point?
Seriously? To keep the hard left out of power and prevent them wrecking everything I love about this country. Worth it for me a thousand times over.
If the end result is Johnson & Brexit wrecking the country I can't see the difference to be honest.
Attlee beat Churchill twice. Heath beat Wilson in 1970. Douglas-Home ran Wilson very close in 1964 . Major defeated Kinnock in 1992.
It's curious - Conservatives eulogise Churchill but he fought three elections as their leader and lost two.
Attlee's score as Labour leader was two wins and three losses (1935, 1951 and 1955).
Liberals are in a much better position to celebrate and eulogise Churchill - after all, had he run Conservatives against five of the six sitting Liberals in 1951 and 1955, their seats would likely have gone to Labour and with just Jo Grimond surviving, the Liberal Party might well have been wound up with Grimond sitting as an Independent.
On topic, people have seen a moderate amount of Starmer since his election, and quite like him, though I don't think they've finally decided their view. They've hardly heard anything about Labour otherwise since the election, so have had no reason to revise their view of the party - if they liked it before, they still do, and vice versa.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
?
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
Yes, you are agreeing with the point I just made!
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
I would have thought that people were more dazzled in those distant days. There was so much more respect and deference to such figures. Nowadays we are far more familiar with them , and this has bred widespread contempt.
Haha they keep getting elected!!!
Attlee beat Churchill twice. Heath beat Wilson in 1970. Douglas-Home ran Wilson very close in 1964 . Major defeated Kinnock in 1992.
Yes, distant days as you say
I was referring there to Attlee specifically. To a great extent, charisma is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Was Foot less charismatic than Thatcher when considered in terms of the entire length and depth of his career? He had been a brilliant orator and a well established author and journalist stretching back decades. His problem was not really lack of charisma but rather that he belonged to a different age. He did not fit well into the style of political campaigning that was prevalent by the early 1980s , but in the 1930s ,40s and 50s he might have been very successful. People such as Asquith , Baldwin - even Lloyd George - would probably not have been perceived as charismatic by that time - indeed Roy Jenkins struggled at the 1983 election. Rather than lacking charisma such figures failed to match expectations of the zeitgeist.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
The suggested equivalence with Owen Jones confirms to me that you are clueless about Hopkins. There is no comparison whatsoever. There really isn't.
It's not about left v right it's about posting material that is intended to stir up racial hatred.
Attlee beat Churchill twice. Heath beat Wilson in 1970. Douglas-Home ran Wilson very close in 1964 . Major defeated Kinnock in 1992.
It's curious - Conservatives eulogise Churchill but he fought three elections as their leader and lost two.
Attlee's score as Labour leader was two wins and three losses (1935, 1951 and 1955).
Liberals are in a much better position to celebrate and eulogise Churchill - after all, had he run Conservatives against five of the six sitting Liberals in 1951 and 1955, their seats would likely have gone to Labour and with just Jo Grimond surviving, the Liberal Party might well have been wound up with Grimond sitting as an Independent.
The Liberals would still almost certainly have retained Montgomery and Cardigan - which they did in 1964 despite a Tory candidate. No seats in England though.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
?
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
Yes, you are agreeing with the point I just made!
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
I would have thought that people were more dazzled in those distant days. There was so much more respect and deference to such figures. Nowadays we are far more familiar with them , and this has bred widespread contempt.
Haha they keep getting elected!!!
Attlee beat Churchill twice. Heath beat Wilson in 1970. Douglas-Home ran Wilson very close in 1964 . Major defeated Kinnock in 1992.
Yes, distant days as you say
I was referring there to Attlee specifically. To a great extent, charisma is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Was Foot less charismatic than Thatcher when considered in terms of the entire length and depth of his career? He had been a brilliant orator and a well established author and journalist stretching back decades. His problem was not really lack of charisma but rather that he belonged to a different age. He did not fit well into the style of political campaigning that was prevalent by the early 1980s , but in the 1930s ,40s and 50s he might have been very successful. People such as Asquith , Baldwin - even Lloyd George - would probably not have been perceived as charismatic by that time - indeed Roy Jenkins struggled at the 1983 election. Rather than lacking charisma such figures failed to match expectations of the zeitgeist.
Blimey, this must be the tenth time I have had to say this. I used the IPSOS-MORI polling that specifically asks whether the respondent thinks the leader has personality or not. So, yes, it is in the eye of the beholder, and the collective beholders had Thatcher leading Foot by an average of 33.5 points. The whole point is that people such as Callaghan, Foot, Miliband, Brown, Hague, IDS, Howard, failed to match the expectations of the zeitgeist! What use is it, when you are thinking about betting, to consider how they would have got on fifty years previously?!
Facebook was good until the boomers took it over, it's been dying slowly since then. It won't surprise me to see it gone in 10 years, just as MySpace and Bebo before it.
Nah. It would have died if the Boomers hadn't taken it over. Now it is a key communications network for millions rather than a cool toy for the young. And those millions spend real money and are a far better demographic for advertisers.
I genuinely think as I said, it's likely in 10 years it will be forgotten as Bebo and MySpace have been too.
It's dying, very slowly.
I don't think anyone is disputing that you 'genuinely think' the views espoused in your posts, I think they just think you're wrong.
Your attacks on my posts are nothing if consistent. Very dull hearing the same view from you constantly about how I am inevitably wrong. No real substance, just "you're wrong".
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
?
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
Yes, you are agreeing with the point I just made!
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
I would have thought that people were more dazzled in those distant days. There was so much more respect and deference to such figures. Nowadays we are far more familiar with them , and this has bred widespread contempt.
Haha they keep getting elected!!!
Attlee beat Churchill twice. Heath beat Wilson in 1970. Douglas-Home ran Wilson very close in 1964 . Major defeated Kinnock in 1992.
Yes, distant days as you say
I was referring there to Attlee specifically. To a great extent, charisma is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Was Foot less charismatic than Thatcher when considered in terms of the entire length and depth of his career? He had been a brilliant orator and a well established author and journalist stretching back decades. His problem was not really lack of charisma but rather that he belonged to a different age. He did not fit well into the style of political campaigning that was prevalent by the early 1980s , but in the 1930s ,40s and 50s he might have been very successful. People such as Asquith , Baldwin - even Lloyd George - would probably not have been perceived as charismatic by that time - indeed Roy Jenkins struggled at the 1983 election. Rather than lacking charisma such figures failed to match expectations of the zeitgeist.
Blimey, this must be the tenth time I have had to say this. I used the IPSOS-MORI polling that specifically asks whether the respondent thinks the leader has personality or not. So, yes, it is in the eye of the beholder, and the collective beholders had Thatcher leading Foot by an average of 33.5 points. The whole point is that people such as Callaghan, Foot, Miliband, Brown, Hague, IDS, Howard, failed to match the expectations of the zeitgeist! What use is it, when you are thinking about betting, to consider how they would have got on fifty years previously?!
The idea that the first US president and primary Founding Father causes ‘harm’ just by being remembered is a direct attack on America’s self perception.
This is a really pivotal moment
If Trump had an IQ above room temperature - Covid or not - he could have been on track to win a Reaganesque landslide in November.
When you say room temperature, is that in imperial or SI units?
One is a pretty good insult, but in the other I don’t think anyone has one that high.
If it was a Labour representative the PB Tories would be going off on one for three days.
Because it's a Tory and as we've been told, Islamophobia either doesn't exist, doesn't matter or doesn't happen in the "anti-racist" Tory Party, this will be forgotten.
Facebook was good until the boomers took it over, it's been dying slowly since then. It won't surprise me to see it gone in 10 years, just as MySpace and Bebo before it.
Nah. It would have died if the Boomers hadn't taken it over. Now it is a key communications network for millions rather than a cool toy for the young. And those millions spend real money and are a far better demographic for advertisers.
I genuinely think as I said, it's likely in 10 years it will be forgotten as Bebo and MySpace have been too.
It's dying, very slowly.
I don't think anyone is disputing that you 'genuinely think' the views espoused in your posts, I think they just think you're wrong.
Your attacks on my posts are nothing if consistent. Very dull hearing the same view from you constantly about how I am inevitably wrong. No real substance, just "you're wrong".
By rising above the petty rudeness you look the smarter poster.
I get I'm not popular on this site and I'm hated by a great number but hearing the same implied attacks on me is wearing a little bin thin.
Basically my opinion is worthless because I'm a leftie but the PB Tories or right wingers on hear are always right. I enjoy it, much rather argue with people I disagree with, I just hate this idea there is anyone on this site who has the wisdom on truth, or who is somehow impartial.
Of course, perhaps I should know better on a pro-Tory site, perhaps the most pro-Tory blog I know of, to be honest.
Facebook was good until the boomers took it over, it's been dying slowly since then. It won't surprise me to see it gone in 10 years, just as MySpace and Bebo before it.
Nah. It would have died if the Boomers hadn't taken it over. Now it is a key communications network for millions rather than a cool toy for the young. And those millions spend real money and are a far better demographic for advertisers.
I genuinely think as I said, it's likely in 10 years it will be forgotten as Bebo and MySpace have been too.
It's dying, very slowly.
I don't think anyone is disputing that you 'genuinely think' the views espoused in your posts, I think they just think you're wrong.
Your attacks on my posts are nothing if consistent. Very dull hearing the same view from you constantly about how I am inevitably wrong. No real substance, just "you're wrong".
By rising above the petty rudeness you look the smarter poster.
It's a complete waste of time, I'm hated on this site and I just go with it now. At least I'm myself
I don't actually think this is terrible news in a way. Our response to this virus so far has been to try to prevent spread (except Sweden) and 'hang on' for a vaccine. In other words, we don't want to change anything, so we'll go through the ringer in the short term to avoid changing anything in the long term.
Coronavirus doesn't look like it's playing that game. So instead, we're forced to look at big changes in both health care systems and the way we treat patients, but also to really look at why different people are vulnerable to different degrees - why our immune systems are (in many cases) not equipped to see this off. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies and other environmental factors - how we all nourish our bodies (or don't) - these things have not really been part of the public health conversation, and now they will be.
On topic, people have seen a moderate amount of Starmer since his election, and quite like him, though I don't think they've finally decided their view. They've hardly heard anything about Labour otherwise since the election, so have had no reason to revise their view of the party - if they liked it before, they still do, and vice versa.
People only begin to look at the Opposition when things go seriously awry for the Government. To an extent that has happened -with the public having become disillusioned with the management of the Covid19 crisis as reflected in the stratospheric Tory leads of March and April falling back to very modest levels. To date though, this probably extends little further than the loss of the 'rally around the flag' factor rather than serious unpopularity. That may change as economic recession bites.
I get I'm not popular on this site and I'm hated by a great number but hearing the same implied attacks on me is wearing a little bin thin.
Basically my opinion is worthless because I'm a leftie but the PB Tories or right wingers on hear are always right. I enjoy it, much rather argue with people I disagree with, I just hate this idea there is anyone on this site who has the wisdom on truth, or who is somehow impartial.
Of course, perhaps I should know better on a pro-Tory site, perhaps the most pro-Tory blog I know of, to be honest.
I think you are ok CHB!
Although this has now become a hard left site! When I started in 2005 it was more balanced but most of the CON have been scared off by the nasty hard lefters!
The idea that the first US president and primary Founding Father causes ‘harm’ just by being remembered is a direct attack on America’s self perception.
This is a really pivotal moment
Oh behave.
That member of antifa George W Bush said several years ago that every day that America engaged in slavery and segregation was a day that America wasn't true to itself.
Of far more significance than this is the continuing disaster that is covid-19 in the United States. Apple are now closing shops in Florida and Arizona, two states where case numbers are rising sharply.
FL Governor de Santis is claiming that since most of those infected are young (apparently, based on the median age of infection falling), it's nothing to worry about as these younger people will all be fine.
Thus speaks a member of the LIFEGOESON party.
Brazil has recorded 50,000 new cases today and over a thousand deaths. They have a President who makes Trump appear reasonable.
I get I'm not popular on this site and I'm hated by a great number but hearing the same implied attacks on me is wearing a little bin thin.
Basically my opinion is worthless because I'm a leftie but the PB Tories or right wingers on hear are always right. I enjoy it, much rather argue with people I disagree with, I just hate this idea there is anyone on this site who has the wisdom on truth, or who is somehow impartial.
Of course, perhaps I should know better on a pro-Tory site, perhaps the most pro-Tory blog I know of, to be honest.
I think you are ok CHB!
Although this has now become a hard left site! When I started in 2005 it was more balanced but most of the CON have been scared off by the nasty hard lefters!
Who in here is hard left though? I'm probably the most left wing person here I would think, although I've accepted my views aren't what the country wants to see hence my moderation.
I get I'm not popular on this site and I'm hated by a great number but hearing the same implied attacks on me is wearing a little bin thin.
Basically my opinion is worthless because I'm a leftie but the PB Tories or right wingers on hear are always right. I enjoy it, much rather argue with people I disagree with, I just hate this idea there is anyone on this site who has the wisdom on truth, or who is somehow impartial.
Of course, perhaps I should know better on a pro-Tory site, perhaps the most pro-Tory blog I know of, to be honest.
I get I'm not popular on this site and I'm hated by a great number but hearing the same implied attacks on me is wearing a little bin thin.
Basically my opinion is worthless because I'm a leftie but the PB Tories or right wingers on hear are always right. I enjoy it, much rather argue with people I disagree with, I just hate this idea there is anyone on this site who has the wisdom on truth, or who is somehow impartial.
Of course, perhaps I should know better on a pro-Tory site, perhaps the most pro-Tory blog I know of, to be honest.
I think you are ok CHB!
Although this has now become a hard left site! When I started in 2005 it was more balanced but most of the CON have been scared off by the nasty hard lefters!
Who in here is hard left though? I'm probably the most left wing person here I would think, although I've accepted my views aren't what the country wants to see hence my moderation.
CNN: More than 150,000 new coronavirus cases were reported to WHO yesterday — "the most in a single day so far,” World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a Friday briefing.
“Almost half of those cases were reported from the Americas, with large numbers also being reported from South Asia and the Middle East,” he added
I get I'm not popular on this site and I'm hated by a great number but hearing the same implied attacks on me is wearing a little bin thin.
Basically my opinion is worthless because I'm a leftie but the PB Tories or right wingers on hear are always right. I enjoy it, much rather argue with people I disagree with, I just hate this idea there is anyone on this site who has the wisdom on truth, or who is somehow impartial.
Of course, perhaps I should know better on a pro-Tory site, perhaps the most pro-Tory blog I know of, to be honest.
You've not been below the line on Guido then.
I don't go on Guido out of principle but I'm aware of the comments section, fair point.
Comments
Edit: I see Robert has already made the same point.
What I'm arguing for is that in the case of social media platforms with more than x million users, political affiliation should - in effect - become a legally-protected characteristic (but which does not protect the posting of illegal material).
I know I'm not going to convince you, and that's fine. But I don't think it's an inherently inconceivable idea.
This guy is like Jen from The IT Crowd.
But no matter. I think this idea that the riots will play into Trump's hands is dead wrong. The only way that happens is if Biden explicitly endorses the rioting and vandalism - not just the BLM marches themselves which I get the impression most normal Americans sympathise with at least in principle but the actual violence.
And Biden is not going to do that. Trump is so distrusted that any claims he makes about Biden supporting violence are going to fall on deaf ears and risk the obvious retort that it is Trump's own actions which are inciting violence.
Fox News gets between 300,000 and four million viewers depending on the time of day. In a single day it probably gets a cumulative 25 to 30 million hours of viewer time.
So, Twitter's monthly usage is about the same as Fox News managed yesterday and today.
It's not some insane monopoly. It's a failing commercial organisation that the government should stay away from.
Not a happy precedent. And I think Demings has even less campaigning experience than she did. Moreover, her back story is hardly perfect - on her watch there were all sorts of problems in the Orlando police including violence, brutality and allegations of coverups.
I really think passing over Harris would be a bad move. Sure, the Tea Party mob will hate her. But they’ll hate whoever’s picked.
Twitter is for argumentative nerds only... I am also on that of course. But the amount of importance we attach to it on here explains why the bubble get election results wrong so often - only politically engaged people are on it, they are talking to themselves... none of my mates are on it and my girlfriend just thinks it is horrible and cant understand why anyone uses it at all
Pence: Senator
Biden: Senator
Cheney: Former Sec Defence and Former Member House of Representatives
Gore: Senator
Quayle: Senator
Bush: CIA and Former Member House of Representatives
Suddenly, the old ImALiberalButPutCrackDealersAwayFor1000Years pitch has no buyers.
https://twitter.com/RareIrishStuff/status/1268876846327832576
It's dying, very slowly.
That member of antifa George W Bush said several years ago that every day that America engaged in slavery and segregation was a day that America wasn't true to itself.
From 2017, NSFW.
https://twitter.com/ARaghei/status/893877411129028613
https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/pitchside-microphones-picked-up-jurgen-klopps-sweary-advice-to-players-136811
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53099283
He tweeted how good it was to be back on Tuesday, but didn't get picked on the Wednesday
Worth noting he lost spectacularly as well...
Good night.
As you say, short for anti fascist?
Within a week or 2, you are shopping in camo for a junk to hang on the Picatinny rails of your AR.
I was surprised it was that old. Apparently there are several younger users, but the average is skewed by the millions of users who are in their 120s.
FL Governor de Santis is claiming that since most of those infected are young (apparently, based on the median age of infection falling), it's nothing to worry about as these younger people will all be fine.
Thus speaks a member of the LIFEGOESON party.
I give that two days max before the barmaids in my local go back to chatting to their pals.
Attlee's score as Labour leader was two wins and three losses (1935, 1951 and 1955).
Liberals are in a much better position to celebrate and eulogise Churchill - after all, had he run Conservatives against five of the six sitting Liberals in 1951 and 1955, their seats would likely have gone to Labour and with just Jo Grimond surviving, the Liberal Party might well have been wound up with Grimond sitting as an Independent.
A. Anti-gua.
To a great extent, charisma is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Was Foot less charismatic than Thatcher when considered in terms of the entire length and depth of his career? He had been a brilliant orator and a well established author and journalist stretching back decades. His problem was not really lack of charisma but rather that he belonged to a different age. He did not fit well into the style of political campaigning that was prevalent by the early 1980s , but in the 1930s ,40s and 50s he might have been very successful. People such as Asquith , Baldwin - even Lloyd George - would probably not have been perceived as charismatic by that time - indeed Roy Jenkins struggled at the 1983 election. Rather than lacking charisma such figures failed to match expectations of the zeitgeist.
It's not about left v right it's about posting material that is intended to stir up racial hatred.
I'm talking about THIS case - Hopkins.
https://twitter.com/TheaDickinson/status/1274067965311422464?s=20
One is a pretty good insult, but in the other I don’t think anyone has one that high.
Edit: should have said SI units not metric.
Because it's a Tory and as we've been told, Islamophobia either doesn't exist, doesn't matter or doesn't happen in the "anti-racist" Tory Party, this will be forgotten.
Mark my words.
More polling coming it seems
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1274088717058277388?s=20
Basically my opinion is worthless because I'm a leftie but the PB Tories or right wingers on hear are always right. I enjoy it, much rather argue with people I disagree with, I just hate this idea there is anyone on this site who has the wisdom on truth, or who is somehow impartial.
Of course, perhaps I should know better on a pro-Tory site, perhaps the most pro-Tory blog I know of, to be honest.
Coronavirus doesn't look like it's playing that game. So instead, we're forced to look at big changes in both health care systems and the way we treat patients, but also to really look at why different people are vulnerable to different degrees - why our immune systems are (in many cases) not equipped to see this off. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies and other environmental factors - how we all nourish our bodies (or don't) - these things have not really been part of the public health conversation, and now they will be.
Nobody is safe it seems. Probably for the best to get rid of the baggage whatever side it comes from.
Although this has now become a hard left site! When I started in 2005 it was more balanced but most of the CON have been scared off by the nasty hard lefters!
Slightly clearer view of the new (?) polling
PSST I voted Leave don't tell anyone
“Almost half of those cases were reported from the Americas, with large numbers also being reported from South Asia and the Middle East,” he added