This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Amazingly, I now think it possible they will attempt to destroy it, as it commemorates:
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner: his statues have already come down George Washington, a slave owner: his statue was toppled in Oregon Abraham Lincoln, a racist: his statues have been defaced in several places Theodore Roosevelt: a "colonialist" - his statue is now departing NYC
That's a lot of icons begging to be broken
Given the massive challenges we are facing on the health, economic and environmental fronts right now all this stuff about statues and "wokeness" has a distinct air of fiddling while Rome burns.
i completely agree, the problem is once you start an iconoclasm they are very hard to stop until they burn themselves out or self-destruct. Once one graven image is deemed so hateful it must be broken, then why is this almost identical graven image allowed? It cannot be allowed! Burn it down!
They have an inner logic and volition.
Students and youngsters have been demonstrating and outraging their elders since time began. All that's changed is that you and Bluesest Blue have morphed into today's "disgusted from Tunbridge Wells". It just hasn't dawned on you yet
'Outraging your elders' now means tearing down the foundations of our civilization? That's some impressive historical illiteracy you've got going on there...
You could hear exactly the same sentiments during the Vietnam demonstrations, gay rights demonstrations, poll tax demonstrations, Toxteth riots, etc etc etc.
You are behaving like a superannuated old colonel claiming that moving a few old statues constitutes "tearing down the foundations of our civilisation". Give your head a wobble and actually listen to yourself.
It's a few old statues. At the end of the day half a dozen will end up being moved into a museum where they probably belonged in the first place.
If you are really worried about the future of civilisation you would be better turning your attention to the current pandemic raging across the planet and the economic consequences heading our way.
Thinking that "old" in "a few old statues" is a negative, puts one in mind of Betjeman
"And what was the funniest part, We smashed some rotten old pictures that were priceless works of art."
I wasn't advocating destroying them , I was saying that they were old in the context that they would be better served being in a museum. Many of them were vanity projects for the wealthy and few have much artistic merit as far as I can tell.
Although ironically the Roosevelt statue di Blasio is talking about and the one Khan took down were both in the context of museums already
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Straight swap: Sacoolas for Andrew. Job done.
There shouldn't be any technical legal arguments. It should simply be a question of what is right and what is wrong. There's no moral basis for obstructing the normal course of justice here and the US should hand the woman over without delay.
There was a simarly case many years ago involving a foreign diplomat killing someone in New York. Nobody argued the niceties. He was simply handed over on principle. It was the right thing to do.
The US are behaving like shits here. We should show our disdain. Step forward Raab. Show us what you're made of.
The biggest shit of all is Ms Sacoolas herself. How she can look her children in the eye knowing what she has done I don’t know. She should return to face the music. It is the honourable thing to do.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Straight swap: Sacoolas for Andrew. Job done.
There shouldn't be any technical legal arguments. It should simply be a question of what is right and what is wrong. There's no moral basis for obstructing the normal course of justice here and the US should hand the woman over without delay.
There was a simarly case many years ago involving a foreign diplomat killing someone in New York. Nobody argued the niceties. He was simply handed over on principle. It was the right thing to do.
The US are behaving like shits here. We should show our disdain. Step forward Raab. Show us what you're made of.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
Agreed. I don't much like Mandelson, either; but this is the kind of role he's made for. (I think Letwin possibly falls into the category of those who have great ability and is able to get disparate people to work together, too, but is far too theoretical/impractical.)
Fox is both third rate, and too much of a committed Atlanticist, to be an effective international mediator. And as you point out, the role requires someone who can rebuild an organisation which is both broken, and facing a divided world.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
Why do you say that about Mandelson ? I would be interested to know the reasoning. I have never been a fan either although he is obviously smart. What would he bring to it which would mean he is not just another middle aged, wealthy, white male in a position of influence.
As for Fox, dear me, what an awful choice.
Hey, if he could keep the cabinet of Gordon Brown afloat through James Purnell's resignation, he's got something about him. And he got the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running quite successfully for a brief initial period, which was not a gimme - indeed, it's more than can be said for most of his successors. He then went to Brussels and on the whole was a pretty effective trade commissioner.
As for salesman, he was the man who created New Labour, one of the most successful political marketing campaigns of all time.
His record is highly impressive. It's not by any means unblemished, but he's a big and successful figure. When you consider other potential candidates, he would probably stack up favourably against just about any of them.
But as @MaxPB notes, our nominee won't get it so it's moot.
Anyway, teaching calls. Have a good morning.
He also gave and raised money privately for the victims of the Omaha bombing for them to pursue their claim against the alleged perpetrators and continued taking an interest in their case long after he stopped being NI Secretary. Apparently one MP who was too mean to contribute was Ian Paisley.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
That is one version of Mandelson. The other is that he is far too fond of billionaires, was repeatedly sacked, and was never the subtle operator he was made out to be.
Yikes. Does BBC know something the rest of us don't?
You can easily end up backing the field in that market. Better to lay the favorites.
I expect Harris and imo her price at a shade under evens is value. That said, I'm not doing it. It would be annoying to lump on and lose. I'm sticking to the knitting for now - Trump Toast.
I'm happy, for now, with my 1000/1 bet on her as next president.
The speculation I am enjoying this morning before going to do something useful is the rub-out-history-don't-think-about-it mob reading up on Keir Hardie, and demanding that Sir Starmer rename himself to be Keith.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
NOT THIS YEAR!! GO AWAY AND DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR PAPERS!
In any case, it's bollocks to say that they've failed to pull the Democrats to the left. What he really means is that they've failed to get them to adopt in full the program of the far left of the party.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Feel your pain, Malc, but not sure I'm in favor of tossing criminals into the Ocean. They're not all psychopaths.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
If someone isn't a British citizen, and they come to the country and commit a serious criminal offence that warrants a custodial sentence, they should be returned from whence they came - there is nothing 'uncivilised' about this.
As I indicated, I've some sympathy but if you're not careful you end up effectively condemning people to death for minor offences. It's tricky, but a blanket 'chuck 'em out' approach is too simplistic.
Minor offences such as exceeding the speed limit don't end in a prison sentence though. Well unless you then attempt to pervert the course of justice thereafter but that's another matter
Prison is most definately possible for minor offencies if you are unable to pay the resulting fine.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Feel your pain, Malc, but not sure I'm in favor of tossing criminals into the Ocean. They're not all psychopaths.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
If someone isn't a British citizen, and they come to the country and commit a serious criminal offence that warrants a custodial sentence, they should be returned from whence they came - there is nothing 'uncivilised' about this.
As I indicated, I've some sympathy but if you're not careful you end up effectively condemning people to death for minor offences. It's tricky, but a blanket 'chuck 'em out' approach is too simplistic.
Minor offences such as exceeding the speed limit don't end in a prison sentence though. Well unless you then attempt to pervert the course of justice thereafter but that's another matter
Prison is most definately possible for minor offencies if you are unable to pay the resulting fine.
A mate of mine is a partner in a law firm and he specialises in commercial proprerty law. After Covid19 he is not expecting to be very busy.
I think that he is pessimistic. Firstly, there will be a lot of properties in the hands of liquidators and administrators that are going at bargain prices. Secondly, there will be an urgent need to renegotiate rental agreements for a significant range of businesses to reflect the new realities. Thirdly, any landlord stupid enough to refuse to renegotiate on rents is going to find tenants very anxious to find reasons to terminate the lease. Fourthly, we are likely to see a repeat of previous episodes where lower property values puts companies in breach of banking covenants etc. In short lots of distress related work if not a lot of green field development.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I am strongly of the view that 2019 with 2017 manifesto with Starmer would have lead to a Hung Parliament - and this is where Starmer will pitch in 2024.
Yikes. Does BBC know something the rest of us don't?
You can easily end up backing the field in that market. Better to lay the favorites.
I expect Harris and imo her price at a shade under evens is value. That said, I'm not doing it. It would be annoying to lump on and lose. I'm sticking to the knitting for now - Trump Toast.
I'm happy, for now, with my 1000/1 bet on her as next president.
Next president, or the winner of the November election? They might not be the same person.
Minor offences such as exceeding the speed limit don't end in a prison sentence though. Well unless you then attempt to pervert the course of justice thereafter but that's another matter
If you exceed the speed limit by 100% they will throw in Dangerous Driving and try for a custodial. Voice of experience... I only swerved it on a technicality unearthed by my solicitor. #fastlivesmatter
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
A rare point of agreement there Malcolm. If you're sentenced to a year or more in prison, then you've clearly overstayed your welcome in the country.
Every other country deports foreign criminals, and the assumption should be that you are deported straight from prison and can appeal at your own expense from abroad.
Perhaps there is also a need to better educate new arrivals of rights and responsibilities, and of things which are illegal which might not be elsewhere. (although clearly murder is illegal everywhere).
I thnk it was because his country was a war zone. Rightly or wrongly, we don't usually deport people to them.
Yikes. Does BBC know something the rest of us don't?
You can easily end up backing the field in that market. Better to lay the favorites.
I expect Harris and imo her price at a shade under evens is value. That said, I'm not doing it. It would be annoying to lump on and lose. I'm sticking to the knitting for now - Trump Toast.
I'm happy, for now, with my 1000/1 bet on her as next president.
Ooo that is spectacular. To fess up to one of my bad ones (yes I do have them) I have her in that market too - @ 15 from when she was looking right in the mix for the nom.
Mike is right that the new normal is going to be nothing like the old normal until we have an effective vaccine or much better treatment. I was in Parliament House on Friday collecting papers. It was dirty, dusty and very largely deserted. Each table, which used to sit 8 advocates, now has a single chair. The carpets and floors are covered in 2m signage (we may have a mini boom for some if this becomes 1m) and hand sterilisers are everywhere. It was grim and nothing like my place of work in February. Of course the restaurants and cafes on the Royal Mile remain closed and in Scotland there is no clear idea when that might change. I went to Pret for a sandwich for lunch. It was not busy and seemed just a tad desperate. Traffic remained low by Edinburgh standards although clearly busier than a month ago. We have a long, long way to go to get things moving again.
The question will soon turn to turn to how many businesses will be viable under the new regulations. They may be open but are going to do enough trade to survive?
Restaurants will reopen shortly but I doubt many will be able to do 50% of their former business. Is it even going to be an enjoyable experience? Shopping certainly isn't even though the shops are open. Will theatres, cinemas, sports venues, gyms ever pull in the numbers they need to be viable?
I think too many people assume that once it is possible to go back to doing something then people will. Apart from those who won't risk it there will be plenty who find it's just not that enjoyable any more. We used a bustling independent coffee shop about 4 times a week, it's open but getting a coffee now is more reminiscent of lining up at a soup kitchen than the pleasurable experience it used to be. After 2 weeks we found we have more or less stopped going.
You are correct, until there is a vaccine or effective treatment we are not going back to normal.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
The answer lies in a neglected area: The law of comparative advantage. There are exactly two parties that can form a government, and this is either on their own or in coalition. No other options are available. In 2017 the Tory party was so completely rubbish that an opening was created for Labour nearly to win (in coalition), despite being rubbish itself. In 2019 the same Labour party could never come close given Boris's leadership and the care to avoid the horrors of 2017. In 2017 Labour still came 55 seats behind the Tories.
Labour could win (probably in coalition) but only if it is seen as good and the Tories are rubbish. I think when both are bad it can't win. That's the difference the demographic change in party loyalty has made.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
The biggest swing from 2017 to 2019 was Labour to LD, much of which has now gone back to Labour under Starmer
Yikes. Does BBC know something the rest of us don't?
You can easily end up backing the field in that market. Better to lay the favorites.
I expect Harris and imo her price at a shade under evens is value. That said, I'm not doing it. It would be annoying to lump on and lose. I'm sticking to the knitting for now - Trump Toast.
I'm happy, for now, with my 1000/1 bet on her as next president.
Next president, or the winner of the November election? They might not be the same person.
The Betfair market: Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?
This market will be turned in-play at the stated time on the day of the election. Thereafter the market will not be actively managed. Customers are entirely responsible for their bets at all times.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election... etc
Yikes. Does BBC know something the rest of us don't?
You can easily end up backing the field in that market. Better to lay the favorites.
I expect Harris and imo her price at a shade under evens is value. That said, I'm not doing it. It would be annoying to lump on and lose. I'm sticking to the knitting for now - Trump Toast.
I'm happy, for now, with my 1000/1 bet on her as next president.
Ooo that is spectacular. To fess up to one of my bad ones (yes I do have them) I have her in that market too - @ 15 from when she was looking right in the mix for the nom.
NOT THIS YEAR!! GO AWAY AND DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR PAPERS!
Apparently they've failed to gather enough signatures in a lot of swing states, largely thanks to The Great Rona. I think the places listed as "petitioning" are where they've missed the deadline and are resorting to asking the governor/legislature extra nicely, which I guess will generally elicit the reply given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram. https://www.gp.org/ballot_access
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
@HYUFD Indeed, we can see the return to Labour in their return to 40% in the polls.
The issue as far as I can see, is that whilst 40% would have been comfortable victories for Labour from 2005 to 2015, now 40% is too low to win, unless the Tory voteshare declines and voters switch directly to Labour and/or stay at home.
It's the next few percent that Labour is going to find difficult to win IMHO. Of course I believe a majority is impossible but minority Government seems reasonable. So Labour's challenge seems to be gaining another 3-4% of voteshare above what Corbyn was able to do in 2017.
Yikes. Does BBC know something the rest of us don't?
You can easily end up backing the field in that market. Better to lay the favorites.
I expect Harris and imo her price at a shade under evens is value. That said, I'm not doing it. It would be annoying to lump on and lose. I'm sticking to the knitting for now - Trump Toast.
I'm happy, for now, with my 1000/1 bet on her as next president.
Ooo that is spectacular. To fess up to one of my bad ones (yes I do have them) I have her in that market too - @ 15 from when she was looking right in the mix for the nom.
I did tip it on here on a few occasions.
Yes, I recall. And you are (I sense) looking good financially for Nov 3rd. Although there are (just this once) bigger things at stake than betting here.
If Kamala DOES end up as next POTUS, that 15/1 of mine will become an example of something quite rare - a mug bet that pays off!
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
In 2017 everything went right for Labour, in 2019 everything went wrong. I think somewhere in the middle probably shows the fair assessment of "Corbynism moderated by Labour MPs" as an electoral offering. Keeping Corbyn in place was a mistake, I think. The electorate don't like being offered something they've already said no to. I think it's reasonable to expect that Labour will form the government after the next election, although an outright majority remains a big ask without a lot of Scottish seats.
I see this as progress - why do police officers need to be University graduates?
They need a mix as a lot of high value crime is tech driven. Also a lot of crime resolution is data driven so well qualified people are needed. As of course are feet on the street.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
Presentation, image and perception are important in politics. The Left are not exempt from this.
And of course one man's "marxist misery" is another's "unleashing the potential of the many".
@HYUFD Indeed, we can see the return to Labour in their return to 40% in the polls.
The issue as far as I can see, is that whilst 40% would have been comfortable victories for Labour from 2005 to 2015, now 40% is too low to win, unless the Tory voteshare declines and voters switch directly to Labour and/or stay at home.
It's the next few percent that Labour is going to find difficult to win IMHO. Of course I believe a majority is impossible but minority Government seems reasonable. So Labour's challenge seems to be gaining another 3-4% of voteshare above what Corbyn was able to do in 2017.
To get a majority yes, especially unless they make big gains in Scotland.
Otherwise they will likely need Tory to LD movement as well as that 40% for Labour to enable Starmer to become PM
Looks like Michael Bay has fallen foul of the #metoo police this morning.
Looks like Michael Bay is being revealed as a misogynist creep this morning.
That hardly seems a revelation. Though I guess one might have missed it behind the far more blatant message of his movies - which is what a spectacularly bad film director he is.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
I don't agree. I think Labour can win from slightly left of centre, but not from anything like the Corbyn Left. After the Corbyn years it needs to demonstrate it is sensible enough to govern. It isn't good enough for Starmer to simply be not Corbyn and not Johnson(the latter of which will be a very tarnished brand by then). Labour will need a detailed and credible plan for government.
@HYUFD Indeed, we can see the return to Labour in their return to 40% in the polls.
The issue as far as I can see, is that whilst 40% would have been comfortable victories for Labour from 2005 to 2015, now 40% is too low to win, unless the Tory voteshare declines and voters switch directly to Labour and/or stay at home.
It's the next few percent that Labour is going to find difficult to win IMHO. Of course I believe a majority is impossible but minority Government seems reasonable. So Labour's challenge seems to be gaining another 3-4% of voteshare above what Corbyn was able to do in 2017.
To get a majority yes, especially unless they make big gains in Scotland.
Otherwise they will likely need Tory to LD movement as well as that 40% for Labour to enable Starmer to become PM
Tories at 44% and Labour on 40% wouldn't create a minority Government would it? You'd have to be very lucky on seat makeup and vote location for it to not result in at worst, a Tory minority Government.
Regarding the comments about 2017 Labour and the MPs, I think this is interesting. Much has been written from the left regarding how MPs sabotaged the campaign. I actually take a different view, that their relative moderation made Labour more appealing despite the policy platform being more left wing than recently. It was in 2019 when that team got sidelined/sacked that Labour went off the deep end.
So in summary yes, I believe a 2017 platform with a competent team and leadership, party unity, should have no problems achieving 40% of the vote.
Looks like Michael Bay has fallen foul of the #metoo police this morning.
Looks like Michael Bay is being revealed as a misogynist creep this morning.
Surely it can't surprise anyone that he treats women in real life the same way he treats them in his films.
eda - I'm really surprised it's taken so long for stories to appear.
#metoo.
They've been around for over a decade. TV interview from 2009: ...“They were shooting this club scene,” Fox told Kimmerl. “They brought me in and I was wearing a stars and stripes bikini and a red cowboy hat and six inch heels. He approved it and they said, ‘Michael, she’s 15 so you can’t sit her at the bar and she can’t have a drink in her hand.’ His solution to that problem was to then have me dancing underneath a waterfall getting soaking wet. At 15, I was in 10th grade. That’s sort of a microcosm of how Bay’s mind works.”
Burnley 25/1 to beat Man City this evening. Big price - Burnley are a half decent team - and home advantage is not what it was these days.
I`ve had a nibble.
(I had a nice pick up yesterday, backing Ev v Liv at 0-0 at 19 with BF.)
Nice one. I'm an aficionado of high priced goalless draws. You get good lay back options in play too.
Ha - I do exactly the same. It`s because 0-0 is a boring bet that, my theory goes, the price tends to be on the generous side.
I`ve also taken a bit of 0-0 tonight at a ridiculous 30 with BF (If the price is the same - or v close - I always take No Goalscorer in First Goalscorer market in case there is one own goal) - I`ll close half of it out if the price falls to 10 and then another bit if it drops to 5 and let the rest run.
@HYUFD Indeed, we can see the return to Labour in their return to 40% in the polls.
The issue as far as I can see, is that whilst 40% would have been comfortable victories for Labour from 2005 to 2015, now 40% is too low to win, unless the Tory voteshare declines and voters switch directly to Labour and/or stay at home.
It's the next few percent that Labour is going to find difficult to win IMHO. Of course I believe a majority is impossible but minority Government seems reasonable. So Labour's challenge seems to be gaining another 3-4% of voteshare above what Corbyn was able to do in 2017.
To get a majority yes, especially unless they make big gains in Scotland.
Otherwise they will likely need Tory to LD movement as well as that 40% for Labour to enable Starmer to become PM
Brexit's going wrong enough for Remainers/Rejoiners to switch?
Looks like Michael Bay has fallen foul of the #metoo police this morning.
Looks like Michael Bay is being revealed as a misogynist creep this morning.
Surely it can't surprise anyone that he treats women in real life the same way he treats them in his films.
eda - I'm really surprised it's taken so long for stories to appear.
#metoo.
They've been around for over a decade. TV interview from 2009: ...“They were shooting this club scene,” Fox told Kimmerl. “They brought me in and I was wearing a stars and stripes bikini and a red cowboy hat and six inch heels. He approved it and they said, ‘Michael, she’s 15 so you can’t sit her at the bar and she can’t have a drink in her hand.’ His solution to that problem was to then have me dancing underneath a waterfall getting soaking wet. At 15, I was in 10th grade. That’s sort of a microcosm of how Bay’s mind works.”
I assume she didn't lie about her age to get into Bad Boys 2.
Looks like Michael Bay has fallen foul of the #metoo police this morning.
Looks like Michael Bay is being revealed as a misogynist creep this morning.
That hardly seems a revelation. Though I guess one might have missed it behind the far more blatant message of his movies - which is what a spectacularly bad film director he is.
Not sure if I've seen any. Suppose I have.
I was just responding to @Pulpstar - mirroring his wording back at him to (I was hoping) show how HIS wording was a tell of his views on this general subject.
In court papers, the former Foreign Office minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base....
...The Foreign Office letter to Baldry as a result recommended that acts performed outside the course of their duties should not be subject to immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
In his submission to the court Baldry writes: “The phrase ‘we remain less than happy’, is a civil service euphemism, because we were obviously extremely unhappy at the prospect of technicians and their dependents being placed above the law, and this I made clear by instructing that any agreement must be conditional upon the waiver.”
What happens in relation to the US now is unclear, but it seems almost undeniable that the UK government acted unlawfully in permitting her to leave the country.
Burnley 25/1 to beat Man City this evening. Big price - Burnley are a half decent team - and home advantage is not what it was these days.
I`ve had a nibble.
(I had a nice pick up yesterday, backing Ev v Liv at 0-0 at 19 with BF.)
Nice one. I'm an aficionado of high priced goalless draws. You get good lay back options in play too.
Ha - I do exactly the same. It`s because 0-0 is a boring bet that, my theory goes, the price tends to be on the generous side.
I`ve also taken a bit of 0-0 tonight at a ridiculous 30 with BF (If the price is the same - or v close - I always take No Goalscorer in First Goalscorer market in case there is one own goal) - I`ll close half of it out if the price falls to 10 and then another bit if it drops to 5 and let the rest run.
Great minds. I do EXACTLY all of that too. And, yes, it maybe is because fun punters don't want to back the "bore draw". That 30 is silly. Will halve to 15 in 20 minutes.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
Looks like Michael Bay has fallen foul of the #metoo police this morning.
Looks like Michael Bay is being revealed as a misogynist creep this morning.
Surely it can't surprise anyone that he treats women in real life the same way he treats them in his films.
eda - I'm really surprised it's taken so long for stories to appear.
This seems to be decade old publically available material about him being a creepy mysoginstic creep being resurfaced.
Unless I am missing something new.
You are missing the fact that currently Michael Bay appears to have far fewer friends in the industry than he used to. The fact it's not being silenced now tells me that some people would like to avoid making more of his big budget blockbusters.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
I don't believe you get 13 million votes and increase your voteshare by 12% by nobody thinking you could win. I just think that analysis is too simple.
Opinion piece printed in: The FT The Economist The New Statesman The Guardian The Observer The Daily Mirror The Morning Star
The Mail on Sunday
The Prime Minister, who in practice makes most of the decisions, has low political cunning but no governmental skills whatever. He is incapable of studying a complex problem in depth. He thinks as he speaks – in slogans.
These people have no idea what they are doing, because they are unable to think about more than one thing at a time or to look further ahead than the end of their noses. Yet they wield awesome power. They are destroying our economy, our cultural life and our children’s education in a fit of absent-mindedness.
Opinion piece printed in: The FT The Economist The New Statesman The Guardian The Observer The Daily Mirror The Morning Star
The Mail on Sunday
The Prime Minister, who in practice makes most of the decisions, has low political cunning but no governmental skills whatever. He is incapable of studying a complex problem in depth. He thinks as he speaks – in slogans.
These people have no idea what they are doing, because they are unable to think about more than one thing at a time or to look further ahead than the end of their noses. Yet they wield awesome power. They are destroying our economy, our cultural life and our children’s education in a fit of absent-mindedness.
Back to the Virus. For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
I don't agree. I think Labour can win from slightly left of centre, but not from anything like the Corbyn Left. After the Corbyn years it needs to demonstrate it is sensible enough to govern. It isn't good enough for Starmer to simply be not Corbyn and not Johnson(the latter of which will be a very tarnished brand by then). Labour will need a detailed and credible plan for government.
You might be right. I get the argument. But I just sense you're wrong. The times are changing, I think. In which case centrist dads will need to embrace it - or at least get out of the doorway and stop blocking up the hall.
In court papers, the former Foreign Office minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base....
...The Foreign Office letter to Baldry as a result recommended that acts performed outside the course of their duties should not be subject to immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
In his submission to the court Baldry writes: “The phrase ‘we remain less than happy’, is a civil service euphemism, because we were obviously extremely unhappy at the prospect of technicians and their dependents being placed above the law, and this I made clear by instructing that any agreement must be conditional upon the waiver.”
What happens in relation to the US now is unclear, but it seems almost undeniable that the UK government acted unlawfully in permitting her to leave the country.
I don't believe you get 13 million votes and increase your voteshare by 12% by nobody thinking you could win. I just think that analysis is too simple.
There was a near-perfect alignment for Lab in 2017.
1. Corbyn was new and inspiring to a whole raft of students and activists; 2. He was deemed to represent anti-Brexit 3. Plenty of undecideds or even Cons voters (many of whom I canvassed) were so angry at the Tories for Brexit and, in Corbyn, they had an outlet while not thinking he was going to win.
In 2019 there simply was nowhere for new Lab supporters to come. The Corbyn bandwagon had peaked two years previously and instead of being the change candidate he was seen as someone that absolutely had to be kept from power.
Not a scientist or an expert but would back 1.01 in decent money that "Tomorrow’s expected announcement will effectively end all social distancing" wont happen.
Ill still be doing what I can to socially distance and would generally be happier taking "informed" risk than most of the public.
It will reduce not end social distancing and to claim its ending is unscientific hyperbole.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
Presentation, image and perception are important in politics. The Left are not exempt from this.
And of course one man's "marxist misery" is another's "unleashing the potential of the many".
Even if you have to break millions of eggs along the way.....
In court papers, the former Foreign Office minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base....
...The Foreign Office letter to Baldry as a result recommended that acts performed outside the course of their duties should not be subject to immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
In his submission to the court Baldry writes: “The phrase ‘we remain less than happy’, is a civil service euphemism, because we were obviously extremely unhappy at the prospect of technicians and their dependents being placed above the law, and this I made clear by instructing that any agreement must be conditional upon the waiver.”
What happens in relation to the US now is unclear, but it seems almost undeniable that the UK government acted unlawfully in permitting her to leave the country.
Raab thought she was going to Dover?
I'm not sure the imbecility defence works in administrative law cases ?
I don't believe you get 13 million votes and increase your voteshare by 12% by nobody thinking you could win. I just think that analysis is too simple.
There was a near-perfect alignment for Lab in 2017.
1. Corbyn was new and inspiring to a whole raft of students and activists; 2. He was deemed to represent anti-Brexit 3. Plenty of undecideds or even Cons voters (many of whom I canvassed) were so angry at the Tories for Brexit and, in Corbyn, they had an outlet while not thinking he was going to win.
In 2019 there simply was nowhere for new Lab supporters to come. The Corbyn bandwagon had peaked two years previously and instead of being the change candidate he was seen as someone that absolutely had to be kept from power.
I remember posters on here saying they were not willing to give the Conservatives a huge majority and voting accordingly - they said they knew it was "safe" to vote Labour as no way they could win.
Labour mp's were even stating this to get more votes.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
You can't blame lefties for thinking they might pull it off, however daft it might seem. After all, 52% of people have been dumb enough to vote for Brexit misery, which is probably a lot less reversible than a left wing Labour government, and probably just as damaging.
This is the danger, opening up is necessary for the economy but the virus doesn't care about economics or how bored people are and given a chance exponential growth in cases can start up again. People say it's 'dying out' but that's incorrect, it's being kept in check. Social distancing and hand washing remain necessary and when local outbreaks occur we need efficient track and trace plus maybe local lockdowns.
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
There were only two factors in play in 2019. Brexit, getting it done for the Cons; and Corbyn, huge spending and nationalisation plans.
I would be amazed if, in 2019, any more than 0/02% of the population had any idea or still more cared what each party's 2017 "platform" was.
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Good post - for me Johnson's chance is/was this election and he's blowing it. He won't look new and fresh in 2024.
In court papers, the former Foreign Office minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base....
...The Foreign Office letter to Baldry as a result recommended that acts performed outside the course of their duties should not be subject to immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
In his submission to the court Baldry writes: “The phrase ‘we remain less than happy’, is a civil service euphemism, because we were obviously extremely unhappy at the prospect of technicians and their dependents being placed above the law, and this I made clear by instructing that any agreement must be conditional upon the waiver.”
What happens in relation to the US now is unclear, but it seems almost undeniable that the UK government acted unlawfully in permitting her to leave the country.
Raab thought she was going to Dover?
I'm not sure the imbecility defence works in administrative law cases ?
The difference between 2017 and 2019 will be long debated. My theory is that there is a simple explanation: Boris. Many voters saw Theresa as the embodiment of the stiff, crusty Tory harpy that they've loathed all their lives and voted accordingly. Boris has magic. He makes you think you'll be voting for an idea - that of radiance, good humour and fun times - rather than a political party. To me, the real mystery is how Theresa managed those cosmic poll leads, which, had they come to pass, would have given her one of the greatest wins in global political history. Obviously, it was a chimera but where did it come from?
Nah. It was Get Brexit Done and the extraordinary spending plans of Lab.
This is the danger, opening up is necessary for the economy but the virus doesn't care about economics or how bored people are and given a chance exponential growth in cases can start up again. People say it's 'dying out' but that's incorrect, it's being kept in check. Social distancing and hand washing remain necessary and when local outbreaks occur we need efficient track and trace plus maybe local lockdowns.
Interesting that it is meat packaging once again. There must be something in the conditions in those plants that the virus thrives on.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Agree. But, 2017 and 2019 will be ancient history by the time we get to the next election.
Fair point.
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
+1
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Same thing the left always say. It was just presentation. We need someone who can really *sell* marxist misery to people.
You can't blame lefties for thinking they might pull it off, however daft it might seem. After all, 52% of people have been dumb enough to vote for Brexit misery, which is probably a lot less reversible than a left wing Labour government, and probably just as damaging.
Okay but 40% of the vote is more than Brown and Ed achieved. I get the fact the latter two both did better based on seats but their respective voteshares in today's context would have meant they would have done a lot worse.
If I was to try and make a winning Labour Party, I'd start with the 40% voteshare achieved in 2017 and work from there, not from the low 30s voteshares we saw in 2010, 2015 and 2019.
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
Indeed. It is ironic that Labour did not learn the lessons of 2017 in its disastrous 2019 campaign, and even now in its postmortem, but that the Conservatives did. Much of Boris's platform, sans Brexit, was lifted lock, stock and barrel from Labour's 2017 campaign. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better Theresa May. Labour meanwhile repeated all its 2015 mistakes. I was only half-joking when posting here that there must be a CCHQ mole running Labour's campaign.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
I pretty much agree with both comments. I think there has been a widespread malaise which can be summed up as "Nothing changes" (it's what drove me leftwards after 2010), and people do want a clear direction, though one can overdo it. Corbyn in 2017 was seen by many as worth rolling the dice for, since government under May seemed to be all about pointless drift. In 2019 the Tories had an energetic leader with some concrete promises of change, whereas Labour merely added so many promises that the popular ones seemed incredible too.
People such as you Nick Palmer, by supporting the totally absurd choice of Corbyn for leader of Labour are responsible for giving Boris Johnson and the right wing of the Conservative Party a free pass to do what it likes. The reason why we have a joke for PM is that you offered an even bigger joke. The electorate chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. The reason why Corbyn did comparatively well in 2017 was because no one seriously thought he would win. Everyone was predicting a TMay landslide and Corbyn almost got in by accident. His comparative success was an amateurish fluke and nothing else.
That is far too simplistic. If Labour's relative success in 2017 was a fluke, why did the Conservative Party pinch most of Labour's platform for 2019? Probably because they did the analysis (or their consultants did) on what had worked against Theresa May.
Come on, I think you are being simplistic. What percentage of people do you think really look at a party manifesto in detail? They look to who will be the PM and the people around them and ask if they have credibility. In the most recent election they decided which they were scared of the least and decided to give Johnson the very large benefit of the doubt. My views on Johnson are well known on this site, but the reality remains that he was simply less absurd than the Labour offering.
Comments
This is a question I also want answered. I get the toxicity of May but I can't help but feel that would have lead to depressed turnout as opposed to directly voting for the other side.
Something happened in 2017 - and Labour would be wise to understand the good bits. Obviously glorying it as a great victory is moronic but it cannot just be thrown away.
I don't much like Mandelson, either; but this is the kind of role he's made for.
(I think Letwin possibly falls into the category of those who have great ability and is able to get disparate people to work together, too, but is far too theoretical/impractical.)
Fox is both third rate, and too much of a committed Atlanticist, to be an effective international mediator. And as you point out, the role requires someone who can rebuild an organisation which is both broken, and facing a divided world.
It would fit the pattern of stupid.
Small things...
To answer my own point, I have some thoughts.
In 2017 Corbyn was far more of an unknown than in 2019. In some sense he was a bit like Starmer now.
Lots had been written about him but when he presented what was quite a moderate manifesto, the attacks seemed to be thin.
There's an understandable element of holding your nose in 2017 I think and I have no doubt that lead to the result for Labour.
But to increase your voteshare by 12%, gain millions more votes, something happened. And to just throw it away because of 2019 to me seems odd. Something happened in that election, even if on balance the seat makeup was worse than Brown.
I am not attempting to undo the mess of what was the 2019 election campaign and manifesto and that after 2017 Corbyn seemed to lose it (beyond that brief period in the summer of 2017 when he seemed temporarily incredible to many) but I do think 2017 is a very interesting election because what it did show is that Labour can be more left wing than many had considered.
I believe more moderation is needed - but I believe that is more in presentation than fundamental policy platform (at least the 2017 platform, 2019 was a disaster).
2017 will always be an interesting election to me - and Starmer is intelligent to not dump the entire platform, in my view.
What he really means is that they've failed to get them to adopt in full the program of the far left of the party.
I don't think they'll take many votes.
In short lots of distress related work if not a lot of green field development.
The other part of the 2019 yet to be properly analysed is the role of social media campaigning, much of it under the radar.
The popular account of the Conservative Party's 2017 meltdown is incomplete as well. There was much more that went wrong besides the dementia tax. Even outside the government's control there were two terrorist outrages during the campaign which may have focussed attention on May's police cuts. Crosby's greatest coup was to dump all the blame on Nick and Fiona.
We can win from the left if the leader is viewed as a viable PM.
Name two songs by Blue Oyster Cult
If you exceed the speed limit by 100% they will throw in Dangerous Driving and try for a custodial. Voice of experience... I only swerved it on a technicality unearthed by my solicitor. #fastlivesmatter
Can this Government do anything right?
But I could be wrong.
Did not embed.
Restaurants will reopen shortly but I doubt many will be able to do 50% of their former business. Is it even going to be an enjoyable experience? Shopping certainly isn't even though the shops are open. Will theatres, cinemas, sports venues, gyms ever pull in the numbers they need to be viable?
I think too many people assume that once it is possible to go back to doing something then people will. Apart from those who won't risk it there will be plenty who find it's just not that enjoyable any more. We used a bustling independent coffee shop about 4 times a week, it's open but getting a coffee now is more reminiscent of lining up at a soup kitchen than the pleasurable experience it used to be. After 2 weeks we found we have more or less stopped going.
You are correct, until there is a vaccine or effective treatment we are not going back to normal.
Labour could win (probably in coalition) but only if it is seen as good and the Tories are rubbish. I think when both are bad it can't win. That's the difference the demographic change in party loyalty has made.
"Not deemed to be providing a service" will be something technical about how they get round minimum wage I suspect.
Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?
This market will be turned in-play at the stated time on the day of the election. Thereafter the market will not be actively managed. Customers are entirely responsible for their bets at all times.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election... etc
https://www.gp.org/ballot_access
Per their map, they made it in:
CO
FL
MI
NC
NM
But not in
AZ
GA
IA
MN
NH
NV
OH
PA
VA
WI
eda - I'm really surprised it's taken so long for stories to appear.
Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
When they come for you
The issue as far as I can see, is that whilst 40% would have been comfortable victories for Labour from 2005 to 2015, now 40% is too low to win, unless the Tory voteshare declines and voters switch directly to Labour and/or stay at home.
It's the next few percent that Labour is going to find difficult to win IMHO. Of course I believe a majority is impossible but minority Government seems reasonable. So Labour's challenge seems to be gaining another 3-4% of voteshare above what Corbyn was able to do in 2017.
If Kamala DOES end up as next POTUS, that 15/1 of mine will become an example of something quite rare - a mug bet that pays off!
And of course one man's "marxist misery" is another's "unleashing the potential of the many".
Unless I am missing something new.
I`ve had a nibble.
(I had a nice pick up yesterday, backing Ev v Liv at 0-0 at 19 with BF.)
Otherwise they will likely need Tory to LD movement as well as that 40% for Labour to enable Starmer to become PM
Though I guess one might have missed it behind the far more blatant message of his movies - which is what a spectacularly bad film director he is.
Regarding the comments about 2017 Labour and the MPs, I think this is interesting. Much has been written from the left regarding how MPs sabotaged the campaign. I actually take a different view, that their relative moderation made Labour more appealing despite the policy platform being more left wing than recently. It was in 2019 when that team got sidelined/sacked that Labour went off the deep end.
So in summary yes, I believe a 2017 platform with a competent team and leadership, party unity, should have no problems achieving 40% of the vote.
TV interview from 2009:
...“They were shooting this club scene,” Fox told Kimmerl. “They brought me in and I was wearing a stars and stripes bikini and a red cowboy hat and six inch heels. He approved it and they said, ‘Michael, she’s 15 so you can’t sit her at the bar and she can’t have a drink in her hand.’ His solution to that problem was to then have me dancing underneath a waterfall getting soaking wet. At 15, I was in 10th grade. That’s sort of a microcosm of how Bay’s mind works.”
I`ve also taken a bit of 0-0 tonight at a ridiculous 30 with BF (If the price is the same - or v close - I always take No Goalscorer in First Goalscorer market in case there is one own goal) - I`ll close half of it out if the price falls to 10 and then another bit if it drops to 5 and let the rest run.
I was just responding to @Pulpstar - mirroring his wording back at him to (I was hoping) show how HIS wording was a tell of his views on this general subject.
I was being a smart arse in other words.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/22/anne-sacoolas-did-not-have-diplomatic-immunity-in-dunn-case-says-ex-minister
...US claims that the American Anne Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity when she drove into the British motorcyclist Harry Dunn last August have been rejected by the former Conservative minister who signed the agreement covering the base where her husband worked.
In court papers, the former Foreign Office minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base....
...The Foreign Office letter to Baldry as a result recommended that acts performed outside the course of their duties should not be subject to immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
In his submission to the court Baldry writes: “The phrase ‘we remain less than happy’, is a civil service euphemism, because we were obviously extremely unhappy at the prospect of technicians and their dependents being placed above the law, and this I made clear by instructing that any agreement must be conditional upon the waiver.”
What happens in relation to the US now is unclear, but it seems almost undeniable that the UK government acted unlawfully in permitting her to leave the country.
It's excellent.
The FT
The Economist
The New Statesman
The Guardian
The Observer
The Daily Mirror
The Morning Star
The Mail on Sunday
The Prime Minister, who in practice makes most of the decisions, has low political cunning but no governmental skills whatever. He is incapable of studying a complex problem in depth. He thinks as he speaks – in slogans.
These people have no idea what they are doing, because they are unable to think about more than one thing at a time or to look further ahead than the end of their noses. Yet they wield awesome power. They are destroying our economy, our cultural life and our children’s education in a fit of absent-mindedness.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8443747/LORD-JONATHAN-SUMPTION-people-no-idea-theyre-doing.html
They've done that and now they don't have a clue what to do.
I said many months ago, we will go into 2024 with basically nothing having changed. I stick by that prediction.
For 3 consecutive days Sweden appears not to have reported New Cases or Deaths. Perhaps there have not been any but all the evidence from 4 days ago suggest completely otherwise. What is going on in that "Open" society, are the figures now so bad they dare not be shown or what. It is all a mystery. There is nothing in the Swedish press that I can find.
1. Corbyn was new and inspiring to a whole raft of students and activists;
2. He was deemed to represent anti-Brexit
3. Plenty of undecideds or even Cons voters (many of whom I canvassed) were so angry at the Tories for Brexit and, in Corbyn, they had an outlet while not thinking he was going to win.
In 2019 there simply was nowhere for new Lab supporters to come. The Corbyn bandwagon had peaked two years previously and instead of being the change candidate he was seen as someone that absolutely had to be kept from power.
@Nigel_Foremain is absolutely right in his analysis.
Ill still be doing what I can to socially distance and would generally be happier taking "informed" risk than most of the public.
It will reduce not end social distancing and to claim its ending is unscientific hyperbole.
https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1274984778970914817?s=21
Labour mp's were even stating this to get more votes.
People say it's 'dying out' but that's incorrect, it's being kept in check. Social distancing and hand washing remain necessary and when local outbreaks occur we need efficient track and trace plus maybe local lockdowns.
I would be amazed if, in 2019, any more than 0/02% of the population had any idea or still more cared what each party's 2017 "platform" was.
Maybe just Get Brexit Done.
If I was to try and make a winning Labour Party, I'd start with the 40% voteshare achieved in 2017 and work from there, not from the low 30s voteshares we saw in 2010, 2015 and 2019.