Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
The French feel that they ought to be Europe’s financial centre. They feel that London has taken what should be Paris’s crown. The French regulators are quite impressive and certainly better than the Germans. I would be surprised if there weren’t moves to make it more attractive to be in the EU and less so in London.
The risk is not of creating one Continental European rival to London IMO but rather that the sector gets fragmented, including its regulation and oversight, in practice if not in theory. That is a danger for both the EU and us and the rest of the world, as should have been obvious from the GFC. Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are never good for clean markets. See, for a recent example, Wirecard.
What the French feel they ought to have doesn't really matter, offices are primarily French speaking in Paris, it's an absolutely huge block to any ambition they have of being a top financial centre. I've worked in Zurich and done weeks at a time in Singapore both were primarily English speaking offices because of the international climate in banking.
Additionally, as one of the target market for French banks, I have absolutely zero desire to live in France, especially Paris. It's a dump and has unreasonably high taxes. My company has committed its future to London, part of that was to reassure the workers that they wouldn't be asked to move to Frankfurt.
The feeling is that London's loss will be Singapore and New York's gain, not Paris or Frankfurt. I can't see anything that has dispelled that notion and the EU's position of not offering whatever the government wants to keep the UK in some kind of regulatory lock-step with the EU is absolutely self-defeating.
Certainly there is going to be a lot of inertia, so the relative decline of the City of London will be slow, at least initially.
People have been predicting the death of square mile for ages. I'll believe it when it happens.
I don't think it's going to die any time soon but for non-EU firms looking to enter the market then they will look at the regulatory environment in the round. They might be tempted to base themselves in the EU (as well) whereas previously they would have concentrated everything in London. So not a death but a diminution.
Plus for those people who have relocated or established EU branches, and plenty have, from exchanges to IBs, that is wealth that is not staying in London.
Plus, oh and not related to Brexit but if we are going to see an influx of PRC firms spreading their wings then there may be some administrative restrictions on basing themselves in London. Which doesn't help.
So far there isn't much evidence, again using my own company as an example, we've committed to London for the long term as have almost all of our Asian peers. Our clients want their money in London. European banks are the interesting case because there is huge political pressure for them to move back, but massive shareholder pressure for them to stay in London. The Americans seem happy to split between London and Dublin for now but that feels choreographed. If anything I'd say that the virus is a much bigger threat to the City than Brexit, it could lead to a mass decentralising of services from London to all over the world and while the companies will be based in London for regulatory reasons the employees (and therefore tax) will be all over the world rather than concentrated in a single location in the UK.
There is a list somewhere of all the firms that have opened substantial operations in the EU. Plus all the MTFs had to and they wouldn't have done otherwise.
Boris haters/TheSir Keir fanclub seem to think Boris is worse than May, and Starmer better than Jezza, whilst Brexit is unpopular
Why then is Starmer doing worse vs Brexit Boris than Jezza did vs May?
It's a reasonable point, although up until an election Jezza was doing worse against May than Keir is against Boris now.
However, the unpopularity of Boris and the government, at the present time, is being vastly over exagerrated. We can think it as incompetent or disastrous as we like, but at present the two are not actually unpopular (well, Boris may be, but it is rare for political leaders to get positive ratings, and the picture is at worse more nuanced for him personally).
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I don't think that's right. Corbyn 2017 was still a bit of a novelty, and voters (especially the naive young) projected a completely absurd image on to him. It was helped by Theresa May's spectacularly bad campaign, and by the under-the-radar Momentum social -media campaign which was a masterpiece of propaganda, vilifying Theresa May and boosting a cuddly but false image of Corbyn. Another help was the fact that everyone thought Theresa May was going to get a landslide, so a vote for Corbyn looked safe even for voters who did recognise what he was.
In 2019 voters were much more savvy about the real nature of Corbyn, and the utterly ludicrous Labour manifesto got much more attention; voters were thinking about what a Corbyn government might actually be like, which they weren't in 2017. The anti-Semitism of Labour under Corbyn had also become too prominent to ignore.
In other words, the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that voters wised up about Corbyn.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
In The Old Days (TM - geddit?) politicians were like robots - you could predict precisely what they would say and do in any given situation like clockwork, because they all read from the same script of The Things You Must Say And Do When X Happens.
I imagine this engendered the same unbearable tedium in others as it did in me. Not to mention anger, because quite often a different approach would have been more intelligent or just or appropriate but the old politicians simply wouldn't do it because it was Not In The Script.
It's very hard to feel an emotional connection to a machine, and whatever else Boris may be, he is very much a human...
Or is he dancer? But more seriously - to me this is part of the dumbing down of politics and I strongly disapprove. However I do to an extent get it. Having no clue what a person is going to say next has a certain compelling quality. It keeps you watching and listening. JOHNSON and Trump are both box office for this reason. Me, I prefer quality to cheap & popular, broadsheet to tabloid, but there are millions of oiks out there who don't and one has to acknowledge this without being sneery and condescending.
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
I bet many of his constituents wouldn’t have been able to name him if they’d been shown a picture of him before he became leader.
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
I think it perfectly possible that that is the case, and that while Corbyn was not a drag on the Labour vote in 2017 that he was in 2019. Multiple things can be true at the same time, and circumstances change.
It wasn't based on *new* evidence. I would suggest it was still based on the evidence.
My reading of the situation is that the argument that they probably do more good than harm in preventing transmission to others has won out over the arguments that there isn't good evidence of protection of the wearer and potential risks to the wearer from mask contamination and/or mask wearing leading to reducing other precautions.
I think there is something in people claiming libertarian or classical liberal status without really being so. Not restricted to just that, I think people pick a label or tribe they feel is the right one even if, when analysing it, you'd find they were not all that socialist or conservative or whatever, but classical liberal and libertarian as labels are particularly prone to such use.
I suspect it was as much May being a drag on the Tory vote in 2017, although the percentages are interesting. Overall turnout was 1.5 percentage points down, the Tories only 1.2pp up but Labour 7.9 down.The SNP was fractionally up (0.8) and the LibDems significantly up, at 4.2pp (All figures from Wikipedia). The result was as much due to differential abstention and the Tories preferred electoral system of FPTP as anything.
Ironically considering he was their best friend, it was the Russians as well as the antisemitism that did for Corbyn I think.
After Salisbury people saw through Corbyn's "magic Grandpa" act. Until Salisbury those not especially engaged in politics saw Corbyn as a genial old man wanting the best and vilified unfairly by the right wing press. After Salisbury and the antisemitism issues came out people saw that actually it wasn't unfair vilification.
Boris haters/TheSir Keir fanclub seem to think Boris is worse than May, and Starmer better than Jezza, whilst Brexit is unpopular
Why then is Starmer doing worse vs Brexit Boris than Jezza did vs May?
It's a reasonable point, although up until an election Jezza was doing worse against May than Keir is against Boris now.
However, the unpopularity of Boris and the government, at the present time, is being vastly over exagerrated. We can think it as incompetent or disastrous as we like, but at present the two are not actually unpopular (well, Boris may be, but it is rare for political leaders to get positive ratings, and the picture is at worse more nuanced for him personally).
Brexit is still a massive driver in politics.
So Boris is viewed through that prism. As is Starmer.
The Brexit unwind will be a over a very considerable period. The next "step down" will be the deal and enactment of the deal.
I do not see Brexit "ending" in British politics anytime soon - my guess is that another series of "steps down" will occur.
Probably Brexit will only end as a major force in British politics when the current generation of politicians are retired. Maybe the next election.....
He's on his own in a soundproof cubicle and needs to be clear in the radio microphone?
Oh I’m not saying he should be wearing a mask! I mean the leap he takes from people refusing to wear them being those who think rich people should pay less tax! By the end of it I wasn’t sure he was ever talking about masks in the first place
Yes, I had wondered why the sudden leap from masks to selling off the NHS as well. There might be some correlation there for all I know, but it kind if distracted from the main point.
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
Do you deny that anyone voted Labour in 2017 with the intention of stopping Brexit?
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I don't think that's right. Corbyn 2017 was still a bit of a novelty, and voters (especially the naive young) projected a completely absurd image on to him. It was helped by Theresa May's spectacularly bad campaign, and by the under-the-radar Momentum social -media campaign which was a masterpiece of propaganda, vilifying Theresa May and boosting a cuddly but false image of Corbyn. Another help was the fact that everyone thought Theresa May was going to get a landslide, so a vote for Corbyn looked safe even for voters who did recognise what he was.
In 2019 voters were much more savvy about the real nature of Corbyn, and the utterly ludicrous Labour manifesto got much more attention; voters were thinking about what a Corbyn government might actually be like, which they weren't in 2017. The anti-Semitism of Labour under Corbyn had also become too prominent to ignore.
In other words, the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that voters wised up about Corbyn.
And he still got more votes than Brown and Miliband!
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I don't think that's right. Corbyn 2017 was still a bit of a novelty, and voters (especially the naive young) projected a completely absurd image on to him. It was helped by Theresa May's spectacularly bad campaign, and by the under-the-radar Momentum social -media campaign which was a masterpiece of propaganda, vilifying Theresa May and boosting a cuddly but false image of Corbyn. Another help was the fact that everyone thought Theresa May was going to get a landslide, so a vote for Corbyn looked safe even for voters who did recognise what he was.
In 2019 voters were much more savvy about the real nature of Corbyn, and the utterly ludicrous Labour manifesto got much more attention; voters were thinking about what a Corbyn government might actually be like, which they weren't in 2017. The anti-Semitism of Labour under Corbyn had also become too prominent to ignore.
In other words, the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that voters wised up about Corbyn.
And he still got more votes than Brown and Miliband!
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
I think the general point is fair. There may be debate about the specific amount of impact he personally had, but he did have it, and even in a situation where one side's huge negatives are very important the other side has to be able to draw people in or at least not put them off, as there are other places the votes could go, including nowhere at all, in order to take advantage of the other side's negatives. After all, the Tories had plenty of negatives too, including Boris himself for many, but Corbyn's own not only exceeded that, but he could not take advantage of the Tory and Boris negatives and nor did anyone else outside Scotland.
Yep. Johnson united the Leave vote but fear of Corbyn prevented same on the Remain side. In a Brexit election that spells landslide. On Johnson - or more accurately for these purposes "Boris" - my sense is that his appeal is strong but limited. He's not widely liked but he is VERY liked by quite a few, and that 'quite a few' happened to include many of the exact voters he needed for the Red Wall strategy to work. The stars really aligned for him - but credit to him for to a large extent making them align.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
I suspect it was as much May being a drag on the Tory vote in 2017, although the percentages are interesting. Overall turnout was 1.5 percentage points down, the Tories only 1.2pp up but Labour 7.9 down.The SNP was fractionally up (0.8) and the LibDems significantly up, at 4.2pp (All figures from Wikipedia). The result was as much due to differential abstention and the Tories preferred electoral system of FPTP as anything.
Boris barely got more votes than May, as you say, and she got a better share of the vote than most Tory leaders so she can’t have been that much of a drag on it
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
The trick is to find a way of doing it that doesn’t result in hundreds more politicians and thousands of hangers-on. Yes, it would be good to see a constitutional convention, and I’d support a federal system whereby England doesn’t have an automatic overall majority at the federal level.
Well, if you are worried about too many politicians, scrapping the House of Lords alongside the introduction of an English Parliament would be the obvious way to go.
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
Do you deny that anyone voted Labour in 2017 with the intention of stopping Brexit?
It’s not for me to deny it for them, but Labour policy was to respect the referendum result, not to have another one.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% against a duffer like May. Whether or not you like or agree with Boris, he's a good campaigner and doesn't struggle to look human like May did or Ed Miliband did in 2015.
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
Do you deny that anyone voted Labour in 2017 with the intention of stopping Brexit?
Personal anecdote alert : in 2017, all the people I knew who were voting Labour to stop Brexit (a good half dozen) were astonished when I pointed out that Corbyn was a Left Leaver of very long standing.
They were completely unaware of his political background.
In any case they thought they would get a minority Labour government propped up by all the other parties. This would stop Brexit. Corbyn's policies they didn't like would be blocked by parliament, they thought....
It wasn't based on *new* evidence. I would suggest it was still based on the evidence.
My reading of the situation is that the argument that they probably do more good than harm in preventing transmission to others has won out over the arguments that there isn't good evidence of protection of the wearer and potential risks to the wearer from mask contamination and/or mask wearing leading to reducing other precautions.
Then went from saying they could do more harm than good to everyone should wear them in public places and did not provide any evidence for this massive change of policy.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
I suspect it was as much May being a drag on the Tory vote in 2017, although the percentages are interesting. Overall turnout was 1.5 percentage points down, the Tories only 1.2pp up but Labour 7.9 down.The SNP was fractionally up (0.8) and the LibDems significantly up, at 4.2pp (All figures from Wikipedia). The result was as much due to differential abstention and the Tories preferred electoral system of FPTP as anything.
Remind us what Labour's preferred electoral system is?
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
Do you deny that anyone voted Labour in 2017 with the intention of stopping Brexit?
It’s not for me to deny it for them, but Labour policy was to respect the referendum result, not to have another one.
Labour's policy was to tear up the Conservatives' Brexit plan and focus on keeping the benefits of the single market. It wasn't a pro-Brexit manifesto. You also need to remember that the whole context of the election was Theresa May accusing Labour and the Lib Dems of trying to block Brexit in parliament as justification for why she needed a bigger majority to deliver it.
I suspect it was as much May being a drag on the Tory vote in 2017, although the percentages are interesting. Overall turnout was 1.5 percentage points down, the Tories only 1.2pp up but Labour 7.9 down.The SNP was fractionally up (0.8) and the LibDems significantly up, at 4.2pp (All figures from Wikipedia). The result was as much due to differential abstention and the Tories preferred electoral system of FPTP as anything.
Boris barely got more votes than May, as you say, and she got a better share of the vote than most Tory leaders so she can’t have been that much of a drag on it
Fair point! It's strange how our perceptions differ from the facts, isn't it!
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
We also know that their vote tends to be concentrated where it can do least good. Piling up the vote in London and Liverpool last time got them one extra seat...just.
I suspect it was as much May being a drag on the Tory vote in 2017, although the percentages are interesting. Overall turnout was 1.5 percentage points down, the Tories only 1.2pp up but Labour 7.9 down.The SNP was fractionally up (0.8) and the LibDems significantly up, at 4.2pp (All figures from Wikipedia). The result was as much due to differential abstention and the Tories preferred electoral system of FPTP as anything.
Boris barely got more votes than May, as you say, and she got a better share of the vote than most Tory leaders so she can’t have been that much of a drag on it
Fair point! It's strange how our perceptions differ from the facts, isn't it!
The biggest mistake of the 2017 campaign wasn't the dementia tax, but focusing all the opposition on Jeremy Corbyn.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
The two greatest sports in the world are Test Cricket and Limited Overs Cricket.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% against a duffer like May. Whether or not you like or agree with Boris, he's a good campaigner and doesn't struggle to look human like May did or Ed Miliband did in 2015.
Fair point - what we know is that a crap leader who is the most unpopular in history can achieve 32% of the vote against Johnson. So it seems to me that 40% of the vote for somebody not unpopular/neutral doesn't seem terribly out of the ordinary
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
Do you deny that anyone voted Labour in 2017 with the intention of stopping Brexit?
It’s not for me to deny it for them, but Labour policy was to respect the referendum result, not to have another one.
Labour's policy was to tear up the Conservatives' Brexit plan and focus on keeping the benefits of the single market. It wasn't a pro-Brexit manifesto. You also need to remember that the whole context of the election was Theresa May accusing Labour and the Lib Dems of trying to block Brexit in parliament as justification for why she needed a bigger majority to deliver it.
That's true. I didn't say it was pro Brexit though, but they were very clear that they accepted it had to happen and there could be no second referendum - Heidi Allen, Chuka Umunna etc are quoted saying this. People who accepted the result but wanted a Labour govt to implement it voted Corbyn in 2017 and got a campaign for a second referendum instead - so TM was right to accuse them of doing so!
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
You do not know what "him [sic] and Frost have achieved".
Last year already they achieved a deal we were told was impossible.
Please stop saying this, it makes you look ridiculous.
They achieved a deal that May had got and Boris rejected at the time.
I'll stop saying it when it stops being true.
I keeping anyone to show me how Stormont controlled May's deal like how Stormont controls Boris's but answer comes there none.
As Topping loves to say the UK was always sovereign in the EU as we could always choose to leave. By the same logic NI is sovereign in Boris's deal as Stormont can vote to leave it. Not the case in the backstop.
Demonstrate otherwise and I promise I will never mention it again.
I do love to say it and it was true.
As for NI, as I answered you earlier, Boris' achievements amount to doing something he said no British PM could ever do, and outright lying about there being no border checks between NI and Great Britain.
Mr. Isam, is it not reasonable to suggest that over time, the knowledge of Corbyn became more deeply embedded in the public's mind, and that his fence-sitting over leaving the EU contributed to a drastic shift against him and Labour?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. It was all out there - he’s been an MP since the early 80s. In 2017 Labour has accepted the referendum result - all the Change UK defectors were elected on a pledge to do so - and got a hung parliament, then they decided they didn’t accept it, and got a hiding
I agree with you that people who hate both Johnson and Corbyn are selecting a GE interpretation to suit - Johnson was not popular merely less unpopular than Corbyn - rather than one that really stacks up. But I sense you are doing the same here with the Brexit angle. The inference is Labour would have done a lot better in the GE with a Leave position. I think this is fanciful in the extreme. The "fudge" - which was Remain really - was a bad position but the best one available. Going with Leave would have left the whole of Remainia to the LDs. Incredibly risky. Imagine losing to the LDs. Does not bear thinking about.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
The two greatest sports in the world are Test Cricket and Limited Overs Cricket.
Agreed although I wish Sibley had stayed in to keep up the run rate rather than this Root fellow whose come in at 3.
Being in the Lords doesn't prevent someone from being a MSP. Vide Lord Foulkes (the chap who complained that the SNP were doing a good job and doing it deliberately, presumably to spite SLAB).
So the temporal sequence of logic doesn't apply.
Of course Lord Darling or Mr Darling (as he will be) could still be head of SLAB from London, but he'd need to be a MP (as Mr Murphy was).
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
You do not know what "him [sic] and Frost have achieved".
Last year already they achieved a deal we were told was impossible.
Please stop saying this, it makes you look ridiculous.
They achieved a deal that May had got and Boris rejected at the time.
I'll stop saying it when it stops being true.
I keeping anyone to show me how Stormont controlled May's deal like how Stormont controls Boris's but answer comes there none.
As Topping loves to say the UK was always sovereign in the EU as we could always choose to leave. By the same logic NI is sovereign in Boris's deal as Stormont can vote to leave it. Not the case in the backstop.
Demonstrate otherwise and I promise I will never mention it again.
I do love to say it and it was true.
As for NI, as I answered you earlier, Boris' achievements amount to doing something he said no British PM could ever do, and outright lying about there being no border checks between NI and Great Britain.
Subject to Stormont's ongoing consent.
Do you accept that ongoing consent is a meaningful change? On the same logic as always sovereign.
It wasn't based on *new* evidence. I would suggest it was still based on the evidence.
My reading of the situation is that the argument that they probably do more good than harm in preventing transmission to others has won out over the arguments that there isn't good evidence of protection of the wearer and potential risks to the wearer from mask contamination and/or mask wearing leading to reducing other precautions.
And it simply wasn’t true to say that there was no new evidence. For example this bit There is no new evidence to suggest that everyone in a hospital or care setting should wear masks ignores at least one US study of a health trust employing 35k people which indicated a benefit from the introduction of a universal masking policy.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
And great legs too. Strong. Good definition.
The legs looked distinctly shaky in that Baxters Foods photo yesterday.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
I think the general point is fair. There may be debate about the specific amount of impact he personally had, but he did have it, and even in a situation where one side's huge negatives are very important the other side has to be able to draw people in or at least not put them off, as there are other places the votes could go, including nowhere at all, in order to take advantage of the other side's negatives. After all, the Tories had plenty of negatives too, including Boris himself for many, but Corbyn's own not only exceeded that, but he could not take advantage of the Tory and Boris negatives and nor did anyone else outside Scotland.
Yep. Johnson united the Leave vote but fear of Corbyn prevented same on the Remain side. In a Brexit election that spells landslide. On Johnson - or more accurately for these purposes "Boris" - my sense is that his appeal is strong but limited. He's not widely liked but he is VERY liked by quite a few, and that 'quite a few' happened to include many of the exact voters he needed for the Red Wall strategy to work. The stars really aligned for him - but credit to him for to a large extent making them align.
Johnson is the kind of male I avoid having anything to do with, his blokey humor and faux toff image is not my cup of tea, his attitude to marriage and fidelity don’t help I do wonder though if those appear to love him actually switched votes in the election as they appear to be natural tories.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
I think the general point is fair. There may be debate about the specific amount of impact he personally had, but he did have it, and even in a situation where one side's huge negatives are very important the other side has to be able to draw people in or at least not put them off, as there are other places the votes could go, including nowhere at all, in order to take advantage of the other side's negatives. After all, the Tories had plenty of negatives too, including Boris himself for many, but Corbyn's own not only exceeded that, but he could not take advantage of the Tory and Boris negatives and nor did anyone else outside Scotland.
Yep. Johnson united the Leave vote but fear of Corbyn prevented same on the Remain side. In a Brexit election that spells landslide. On Johnson - or more accurately for these purposes "Boris" - my sense is that his appeal is strong but limited. He's not widely liked but he is VERY liked by quite a few, and that 'quite a few' happened to include many of the exact voters he needed for the Red Wall strategy to work. The stars really aligned for him - but credit to him for to a large extent making them align.
Johnson is the kind of male I avoid having anything to do with, his blokey humor and faux toff image is not my cup of tea, his attitude to marriage and fidelity don’t help I do wonder though if those appear to love him actually switched votes in the election as they appear to be natural tories.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
I think the general point is fair. There may be debate about the specific amount of impact he personally had, but he did have it, and even in a situation where one side's huge negatives are very important the other side has to be able to draw people in or at least not put them off, as there are other places the votes could go, including nowhere at all, in order to take advantage of the other side's negatives. After all, the Tories had plenty of negatives too, including Boris himself for many, but Corbyn's own not only exceeded that, but he could not take advantage of the Tory and Boris negatives and nor did anyone else outside Scotland.
Yep. Johnson united the Leave vote but fear of Corbyn prevented same on the Remain side. In a Brexit election that spells landslide. On Johnson - or more accurately for these purposes "Boris" - my sense is that his appeal is strong but limited. He's not widely liked but he is VERY liked by quite a few, and that 'quite a few' happened to include many of the exact voters he needed for the Red Wall strategy to work. The stars really aligned for him - but credit to him for to a large extent making them align.
Johnson is the kind of male I avoid having anything to do with, his blokey humor and faux toff image is not my cup of tea, his attitude to marriage and fidelity don’t help I do wonder though if those appear to love him actually switched votes in the election as they appear to be natural tories.
Right, but what was the result? The two deals were widely reported to be essentially the same, except for Northern Ireland, where depending on your taste; Boris caved, or came up with an inspired creative solution. Either way, the EU didn't give in to tough talk.
I think you're being taken in by theatre.
The EU gave Stormont something that they had insisted throughout was impossible: a unilateral exit.
Remember the line "a backstop with an exit is not a backstop".
Finding a compromise often is about finding creative solutions all parties can live with. It's not about throwing everything out.
I applaud Johnson's creativity on this. The consent mechanism is clever.
As I understand it, if Stormont rejects the continuation, then the UK and Ireland have 2 years to figure out a solution. So the argument begins again.
The genius of this is that it kicks the can down the road.
But in practice what we have done is said to the EU, we will give you what you originally wanted. But we reserve the right (for Stormont) to reopen negotiations later.
Presumably we could have done this anyway (all agreements between nations can be reopened after all if one side insists), but it's nice to have it formalized and conditional on Northern Irish acceptance.
But I would characterize this as a unilateral 'back to negotiations' rather than a unilateral 'exit'.
Johnson is the kind of male I avoid having anything to do with, his blokey humor and faux toff image is not my cup of tea, his attitude to marriage and fidelity don’t help I do wonder though if those appear to love him actually switched votes in the election as they appear to be natural tories.
His book on cars is the worst thing ever written in the entire history of English prose composition.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
A sensible chap who doesn't like cricket? I am going to need to think about that, its a 3 patch problem as Sherlock used to say.
Johnson is the kind of male I avoid having anything to do with, his blokey humor and faux toff image is not my cup of tea, his attitude to marriage and fidelity don’t help I do wonder though if those appear to love him actually switched votes in the election as they appear to be natural tories.
His book on cars is the worst thing ever written in the entire history of English prose composition.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
I think the general point is fair. There may be debate about the specific amount of impact he personally had, but he did have it, and even in a situation where one side's huge negatives are very important the other side has to be able to draw people in or at least not put them off, as there are other places the votes could go, including nowhere at all, in order to take advantage of the other side's negatives. After all, the Tories had plenty of negatives too, including Boris himself for many, but Corbyn's own not only exceeded that, but he could not take advantage of the Tory and Boris negatives and nor did anyone else outside Scotland.
Yep. Johnson united the Leave vote but fear of Corbyn prevented same on the Remain side. In a Brexit election that spells landslide. On Johnson - or more accurately for these purposes "Boris" - my sense is that his appeal is strong but limited. He's not widely liked but he is VERY liked by quite a few, and that 'quite a few' happened to include many of the exact voters he needed for the Red Wall strategy to work. The stars really aligned for him - but credit to him for to a large extent making them align.
Johnson is the kind of male I avoid having anything to do with, his blokey humor and faux toff image is not my cup of tea, his attitude to marriage and fidelity don’t help I do wonder though if those appear to love him actually switched votes in the election as they appear to be natural tories.
Man of taste. You, I mean, not him.
My sense is he appealed to 2 main types of erstwhile Labour voters - Leavers and those who are not interested in politics. Plenty of overlap there of course.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
You could argue that Johnson has done labour a big favour. Smashed Corbyn, then showed the voters what he was really like.
Johnson is the kind of male I avoid having anything to do with, his blokey humor and faux toff image is not my cup of tea, his attitude to marriage and fidelity don’t help I do wonder though if those appear to love him actually switched votes in the election as they appear to be natural tories.
His book on cars is the worst thing ever written in the entire history of English prose composition.
His thoughts on gearboxes, or his use of gerunds?
I have never read his book on cars, but have read his Churchill book and it was awful. It was as though he watching the X-factor and thought, "oh I ought to get that into the title to make it a bit more populist", and so about half way through there is an attempt to refer to the book's title as an after thought. The rest of the book has no fresh research and no particular slant or insight. It was definitely the worst political bio I have ever read, well almost read, as I gave up 3/4 of the way through it's tedious pages.
Boris haters/TheSir Keir fanclub seem to think Boris is worse than May, and Starmer better than Jezza, whilst Brexit is unpopular
Why then is Starmer doing worse vs Brexit Boris than Jezza did vs May?
It's a reasonable point, although up until an election Jezza was doing worse against May than Keir is against Boris now.
However, the unpopularity of Boris and the government, at the present time, is being vastly over exagerrated. We can think it as incompetent or disastrous as we like, but at present the two are not actually unpopular (well, Boris may be, but it is rare for political leaders to get positive ratings, and the picture is at worse more nuanced for him personally).
Brexit is still a massive driver in politics.
So Boris is viewed through that prism. As is Starmer.
The Brexit unwind will be a over a very considerable period. The next "step down" will be the deal and enactment of the deal.
I do not see Brexit "ending" in British politics anytime soon - my guess is that another series of "steps down" will occur.
Probably Brexit will only end as a major force in British politics when the current generation of politicians are retired. Maybe the next election.....
I expect the movement to rejoin in one way or another will gain strength far more quickly than it took the sceptics to build up the strength to take us out.
The 60+ generation are the strongest Brexiteers, the under 40's the most remain. Those demographics would suggest that in 10 years time there will be moves to rejoin.
Brexit's best chance of longevity is it being widely seen as a roaring success. The best most Brexiteers seem to beclaiming is that it won't be too bad.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
A sensible chap who doesn't like cricket? I am going to need to think about that, its a 3 patch problem as Sherlock used to say.
Yes, I am not a cricket fan. Perhaps it is my teenage years in the USA that meant I never played either cricket or rugby at school, so never developed the taste. Baseball was the sport that I enjoyed most at school, and even at Little League level it is a good game to play and watch.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
You could argue that Johnson has done labour a big favour. Smashed Corbyn, then showed the voters what he was really like.
Indeed, though my point is really that the only person that smashed Corbyn was Corbyn himself! The same may well be the case for Trump and also, in time, Johnson too. In the end, even the most apolitical recognise the importance of competence in a leading politician.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
I think it fair to describe Ted Heath as a Europhile PM.
WHO has recommended that in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission
Which is exactly where we are at now.
Poor old Nerys spends half the night searching for a bit of evidence to back up her daft theories and you come along and debunk it five seconds flat! LOL
Right, but what was the result? The two deals were widely reported to be essentially the same, except for Northern Ireland, where depending on your taste; Boris caved, or came up with an inspired creative solution. Either way, the EU didn't give in to tough talk.
I think you're being taken in by theatre.
The EU gave Stormont something that they had insisted throughout was impossible: a unilateral exit.
Remember the line "a backstop with an exit is not a backstop".
Finding a compromise often is about finding creative solutions all parties can live with. It's not about throwing everything out.
I applaud Johnson's creativity on this. The consent mechanism is clever.
As I understand it, if Stormont rejects the continuation, then the UK and Ireland have 2 years to figure out a solution. So the argument begins again.
The genius of this is that it kicks the can down the road.
But in practice what we have done is said to the EU, we will give you what you originally wanted. But we reserve the right (for Stormont) to reopen negotiations later.
Presumably we could have done this anyway (all agreements between nations can be reopened after all if one side insists), but it's nice to have it formalized and conditional on Northern Irish acceptance.
But I would characterize this as a unilateral 'back to negotiations' rather than a unilateral 'exit'.
It was creative and got the job done. It is what was needed and it's a shame May failed to be so creative and instead of solving the NI problem made it a while UK problem instead.
Plus by having this conditional upon Stormont and agreed with the EU if the time ever does come for new negotiations the situation will be completely different. As it stands the situation is them saying "well you voted for Brexit, you fix it". If no unilateral exit were agreed it would be " well you're trying to change an agreed treaty, you fix it". Whereas having both sides agreeing to this and giving Stormont the power of future negotiations occur it will be due to Stormont not Westminster. It will be a case that the voters of NI aren't happy so all sides need to work constructively to make them happy. Not our fault.
Boris haters/TheSir Keir fanclub seem to think Boris is worse than May, and Starmer better than Jezza, whilst Brexit is unpopular
Why then is Starmer doing worse vs Brexit Boris than Jezza did vs May?
It's a reasonable point, although up until an election Jezza was doing worse against May than Keir is against Boris now.
However, the unpopularity of Boris and the government, at the present time, is being vastly over exagerrated. We can think it as incompetent or disastrous as we like, but at present the two are not actually unpopular (well, Boris may be, but it is rare for political leaders to get positive ratings, and the picture is at worse more nuanced for him personally).
Brexit is still a massive driver in politics.
So Boris is viewed through that prism. As is Starmer.
The Brexit unwind will be a over a very considerable period. The next "step down" will be the deal and enactment of the deal.
I do not see Brexit "ending" in British politics anytime soon - my guess is that another series of "steps down" will occur.
Probably Brexit will only end as a major force in British politics when the current generation of politicians are retired. Maybe the next election.....
I expect the movement to rejoin in one way or another will gain strength far more quickly than it took the sceptics to build up the strength to take us out.
The 60+ generation are the strongest Brexiteers, the under 40's the most remain. Those demographics would suggest that in 10 years time there will be moves to rejoin.
Brexit's best chance of longevity is it being widely seen as a roaring success. The best most Brexiteers seem to beclaiming is that it won't be too bad.
I have always believed that we will rejoin in approximately 25 years, though it is always possible that an EEA type solution evolves that is the best of both (or worst depending on your perspective), and everyone decides that is best for rUK and rEU and to leave the whole subject well alone.
Boris haters/TheSir Keir fanclub seem to think Boris is worse than May, and Starmer better than Jezza, whilst Brexit is unpopular
Why then is Starmer doing worse vs Brexit Boris than Jezza did vs May?
It's a reasonable point, although up until an election Jezza was doing worse against May than Keir is against Boris now.
However, the unpopularity of Boris and the government, at the present time, is being vastly over exagerrated. We can think it as incompetent or disastrous as we like, but at present the two are not actually unpopular (well, Boris may be, but it is rare for political leaders to get positive ratings, and the picture is at worse more nuanced for him personally).
Brexit is still a massive driver in politics.
So Boris is viewed through that prism. As is Starmer.
The Brexit unwind will be a over a very considerable period. The next "step down" will be the deal and enactment of the deal.
I do not see Brexit "ending" in British politics anytime soon - my guess is that another series of "steps down" will occur.
Probably Brexit will only end as a major force in British politics when the current generation of politicians are retired. Maybe the next election.....
I expect the movement to rejoin in one way or another will gain strength far more quickly than it took the sceptics to build up the strength to take us out.
The 60+ generation are the strongest Brexiteers, the under 40's the most remain. Those demographics would suggest that in 10 years time there will be moves to rejoin.
Brexit's best chance of longevity is it being widely seen as a roaring success. The best most Brexiteers seem to beclaiming is that it won't be too bad.
You assume people's views under 40 remian the same by the time they are 50, 60, etc. History suggests they change.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I don't think that's right. Corbyn 2017 was still a bit of a novelty, and voters (especially the naive young) projected a completely absurd image on to him. It was helped by Theresa May's spectacularly bad campaign, and by the under-the-radar Momentum social -media campaign which was a masterpiece of propaganda, vilifying Theresa May and boosting a cuddly but false image of Corbyn. Another help was the fact that everyone thought Theresa May was going to get a landslide, so a vote for Corbyn looked safe even for voters who did recognise what he was.
In 2019 voters were much more savvy about the real nature of Corbyn, and the utterly ludicrous Labour manifesto got much more attention; voters were thinking about what a Corbyn government might actually be like, which they weren't in 2017. The anti-Semitism of Labour under Corbyn had also become too prominent to ignore.
In other words, the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that voters wised up about Corbyn.
In a way the same could be said about Trump, though I am not counting my chickens yet, nobody ever lost money underestimating the US electorate.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I don't think that's right. Corbyn 2017 was still a bit of a novelty, and voters (especially the naive young) projected a completely absurd image on to him. It was helped by Theresa May's spectacularly bad campaign, and by the under-the-radar Momentum social -media campaign which was a masterpiece of propaganda, vilifying Theresa May and boosting a cuddly but false image of Corbyn. Another help was the fact that everyone thought Theresa May was going to get a landslide, so a vote for Corbyn looked safe even for voters who did recognise what he was.
In 2019 voters were much more savvy about the real nature of Corbyn, and the utterly ludicrous Labour manifesto got much more attention; voters were thinking about what a Corbyn government might actually be like, which they weren't in 2017. The anti-Semitism of Labour under Corbyn had also become too prominent to ignore.
In other words, the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that voters wised up about Corbyn.
And he still got more votes than Brown and Miliband!
Yes, terrifying, isn't it?
Certainly puts British complaints about Americans voting for Trump in perspective.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
I think it fair to describe Ted Heath as a Europhile PM.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
A sensible chap who doesn't like cricket? I am going to need to think about that, its a 3 patch problem as Sherlock used to say.
Yes, I am not a cricket fan. Perhaps it is my teenage years in the USA that meant I never played either cricket or rugby at school, so never developed the taste. Baseball was the sport that I enjoyed most at school, and even at Little League level it is a good game to play and watch.
If I lived in the States and had to pick a US sport to get into it would be that one - baseball. It seems to have more to it than the other two.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
I think it fair to describe Ted Heath as a Europhile PM.
OK, fair point!
I think it is fair to describe Margaret Thatcher as both a Europhile and a Eurosceptic PM too.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
I think it fair to describe Ted Heath as a Europhile PM.
Indeed in the late 1960s and early 1970s under Heath the Tories were more pro EEC than Labour under Wilson, with a few exceptions like Enoch Powell
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
A sensible chap who doesn't like cricket? I am going to need to think about that, its a 3 patch problem as Sherlock used to say.
Yes, I am not a cricket fan. Perhaps it is my teenage years in the USA that meant I never played either cricket or rugby at school, so never developed the taste. Baseball was the sport that I enjoyed most at school, and even at Little League level it is a good game to play and watch.
If I lived in the States and had to pick a US sport to get into it would be that one - baseball. It seems to have more to it than the other two.
From American sports it'd be that or NASCAR for me. Followed by watching paint dry.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
I think it fair to describe Ted Heath as a Europhile PM.
OK, fair point!
I think it is fair to describe Margaret Thatcher as both a Europhile and a Eurosceptic PM too.
On topic, it is interesting to see how people continue to underestimate Boris.
"He only won because of Corbyn". Despite the fact that Corbyn took seats from Theresa May in 2017 "He only won in London because of Ken Livingstone". Despite the fact that Livingstone beat Steve Norris twice "Brexit only won because of a lie on a bus" etc etc
Too many clever people still fall for the bumbling buffoon act and can't understand why he keeps winning.
i Wonder why Mike doesnt post a poll of why Millions switched to Lab in 2017?
Corbyn's 2017 Brexit strategy wasn't a bad one.
How people buy this nonsense of Corbyn being a drag on the Labour vote when they have the 2017 GE staring them in the face is quite unsettling
I've said many times disregarding the 2017 result is very silly.
Something happened in that election for Corbyn to do so unexpectedly well and I can't believe "not May" did it.
Large numbers of people voted for Labour - despite Corbyn - in the belief that a coalition in parliament would stop Brexit?
Then why didn't that happen in 2019?
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
From 2017 to 2019 the Labour vote fell by 8%, the LD vote rose by 4% and the Tory vote rose by 1% and the SNP and Green vote each rose by 1% and the Brexit Party got 2% compared to 1% for UKIP in 2017.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
Nope, very little to do with Brexit as shown in the headline. Even though you didn't vote for Brexit, you seem obsessed by it's effect on Tory votes as the most committed Brexit believer!
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
The changes were all down to Brexit mainly, hence virtually all Labour's gains under Starmer have come from LD Remainers who voted Labour in 2017 but switched to the LDs in 2019. The Tories voteshare is unchanged as Leavers are sticking with Boris.
If 2019 was all down to Corbyn's unpopularity Labour would be ahead in the polls now given Starmer is now Labour leader not Corbyn
If you think he's unpopular now wait until the winter.
I think you greatly overestimate what change is coming.
Furlough through lockdown has worked to avoid the worst of what could have happened.
Now there's a hostage to fortune. We are a long, long way from being out of this yet, medically or economically, economically especially.
Oh absolutely but for all those predicting calamity (of which contrarian certainly is one) I think it is vastly overestimated.
It will be bad, economically it will get worse before it gets better. But it's not going to be awful.
It is going to be terrible.
The question is *how long* the terrible bit will last. If we have an extreme V shape recovery to a level not far from where the economy was...
I rather think we will see an extreme V shape, but not to the level of where the economy was. So, we will end up with a recession, rather than a long depression.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
A sensible chap who doesn't like cricket? I am going to need to think about that, its a 3 patch problem as Sherlock used to say.
Yes, I am not a cricket fan. Perhaps it is my teenage years in the USA that meant I never played either cricket or rugby at school, so never developed the taste. Baseball was the sport that I enjoyed most at school, and even at Little League level it is a good game to play and watch.
If I lived in the States and had to pick a US sport to get into it would be that one - baseball. It seems to have more to it than the other two.
From American sports it'd be that or NASCAR for me. Followed by watching paint dry.
NASCAR is very right wing - so I can see you becoming a big fan.
Boris haters/TheSir Keir fanclub seem to think Boris is worse than May, and Starmer better than Jezza, whilst Brexit is unpopular
Why then is Starmer doing worse vs Brexit Boris than Jezza did vs May?
It's a reasonable point, although up until an election Jezza was doing worse against May than Keir is against Boris now.
However, the unpopularity of Boris and the government, at the present time, is being vastly over exagerrated. We can think it as incompetent or disastrous as we like, but at present the two are not actually unpopular (well, Boris may be, but it is rare for political leaders to get positive ratings, and the picture is at worse more nuanced for him personally).
Brexit is still a massive driver in politics.
So Boris is viewed through that prism. As is Starmer.
The Brexit unwind will be a over a very considerable period. The next "step down" will be the deal and enactment of the deal.
I do not see Brexit "ending" in British politics anytime soon - my guess is that another series of "steps down" will occur.
Probably Brexit will only end as a major force in British politics when the current generation of politicians are retired. Maybe the next election.....
I expect the movement to rejoin in one way or another will gain strength far more quickly than it took the sceptics to build up the strength to take us out.
The 60+ generation are the strongest Brexiteers, the under 40's the most remain. Those demographics would suggest that in 10 years time there will be moves to rejoin.
Brexit's best chance of longevity is it being widely seen as a roaring success. The best most Brexiteers seem to beclaiming is that it won't be too bad.
You assume people's views under 40 remian the same by the time they are 50, 60, etc. History suggests they change.
To some degree that is correct but I am just pointing out that the demographic split on Brexit makes a rejoin movement more likely than if the demographics were reversed.
If Brexit becomes to be widely seen as a disaster it will be in trouble. I was saying this in response to someone suggesting that Brexit would end as a major political force once this generation of politicians retires.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
A sensible chap who doesn't like cricket? I am going to need to think about that, its a 3 patch problem as Sherlock used to say.
Yes, I am not a cricket fan. Perhaps it is my teenage years in the USA that meant I never played either cricket or rugby at school, so never developed the taste. Baseball was the sport that I enjoyed most at school, and even at Little League level it is a good game to play and watch.
If I lived in the States and had to pick a US sport to get into it would be that one - baseball. It seems to have more to it than the other two.
From American sports it'd be that or NASCAR for me. Followed by watching paint dry.
NASCAR very right wing - so I can see you becoming a big fan.
I don't like the American right though.
Reagan right yes. Arnold Schwarzenegger right yes. Mitt Romney right yes.
But the religious right? Dubya? Today's GOP? No thanks.
Until the GOP regains sanity I'd rather vote Democrat.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
A sensible chap who doesn't like cricket? I am going to need to think about that, its a 3 patch problem as Sherlock used to say.
Yes, I am not a cricket fan. Perhaps it is my teenage years in the USA that meant I never played either cricket or rugby at school, so never developed the taste. Baseball was the sport that I enjoyed most at school, and even at Little League level it is a good game to play and watch.
If I lived in the States and had to pick a US sport to get into it would be that one - baseball. It seems to have more to it than the other two.
From American sports it'd be that or NASCAR for me. Followed by watching paint dry.
As an American living over here, baseball and cricket seem the most alike in tone. (Yes, I know there are also an infinite number of differences.) Leisurely afternoon games, throwbacks to a quieter time, punctuated by moments of drama and excitement.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Moderators for goodness sake. Is there no limits on the outrageousness of opinions on this site anymore?
@Foxy is normally such a polite and sensible chap, so I think they gave him a pass this time.
A sensible chap who doesn't like cricket? I am going to need to think about that, its a 3 patch problem as Sherlock used to say.
Yes, I am not a cricket fan. Perhaps it is my teenage years in the USA that meant I never played either cricket or rugby at school, so never developed the taste. Baseball was the sport that I enjoyed most at school, and even at Little League level it is a good game to play and watch.
If I lived in the States and had to pick a US sport to get into it would be that one - baseball. It seems to have more to it than the other two.
From American sports it'd be that or NASCAR for me. Followed by watching paint dry.
NASCAR very right wing - so I can see you becoming a big fan.
I don't like contrived sports and US sports generally are very contrived (and hyped) . For me the best sports to watch and participate are the purest one - athletics , swimming , boxing ,horse racing etc. Anything with loads of rules bores me (as do rules generally in life) . I like individual sports best .
Comments
However, the unpopularity of Boris and the government, at the present time, is being vastly over exagerrated. We can think it as incompetent or disastrous as we like, but at present the two are not actually unpopular (well, Boris may be, but it is rare for political leaders to get positive ratings, and the picture is at worse more nuanced for him personally).
In 2019 voters were much more savvy about the real nature of Corbyn, and the utterly ludicrous Labour manifesto got much more attention; voters were thinking about what a Corbyn government might actually be like, which they weren't in 2017. The anti-Semitism of Labour under Corbyn had also become too prominent to ignore.
In other words, the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that voters wised up about Corbyn.
My reading of the situation is that the argument that they probably do more good than harm in preventing transmission to others has won out over the arguments that there isn't good evidence of protection of the wearer and potential risks to the wearer from mask contamination and/or mask wearing leading to reducing other precautions.
The result was as much due to differential abstention and the Tories preferred electoral system of FPTP as anything.
After Salisbury people saw through Corbyn's "magic Grandpa" act. Until Salisbury those not especially engaged in politics saw Corbyn as a genial old man wanting the best and vilified unfairly by the right wing press. After Salisbury and the antisemitism issues came out people saw that actually it wasn't unfair vilification.
So Boris is viewed through that prism. As is Starmer.
The Brexit unwind will be a over a very considerable period. The next "step down" will be the deal and enactment of the deal.
I do not see Brexit "ending" in British politics anytime soon - my guess is that another series of "steps down" will occur.
Probably Brexit will only end as a major force in British politics when the current generation of politicians are retired. Maybe the next election.....
My theory is that Corbyn was neutral in 2017 and by 2019 he was hated.
Therefore if Starmer is either neutral or liked, he should do the same or better.
What we know is that Labour can achieve 40% of the vote.
They were completely unaware of his political background.
In any case they thought they would get a minority Labour government propped up by all the other parties. This would stop Brexit. Corbyn's policies they didn't like would be blocked by parliament, they thought....
https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1286620591999586305
No?
Then don't even think about playing basketball.
As for NI, as I answered you earlier, Boris' achievements amount to doing something he said no British PM could ever do, and outright lying about there being no border checks between NI and Great Britain.
So basically in 2017 Corbyn got Remainers on board by suggesting he would fight to stop a hard Brexit while keeping Leavers on board by suggesting he would deliver Brexit.
In the end he did neither and thus in 2019 he lost Remainers to the LDs and Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Tories and Brexit Party
So the temporal sequence of logic doesn't apply.
Of course Lord Darling or Mr Darling (as he will be) could still be head of SLAB from London, but he'd need to be a MP (as Mr Murphy was).
Do you accept that ongoing consent is a meaningful change? On the same logic as always sovereign.
For example this bit There is no new evidence to suggest that everyone in a hospital or care setting should wear masks ignores at least one US study of a health trust employing 35k people which indicated a benefit from the introduction of a universal masking policy.
But basically I think it’s because of graphic demonstrations like this one.
https://twitter.com/UNSWMedicine/status/1286458748567867392
As I understand it, if Stormont rejects the continuation, then the UK and Ireland have 2 years to figure out a solution. So the argument begins again.
The genius of this is that it kicks the can down the road.
But in practice what we have done is said to the EU, we will give you what you originally wanted. But we reserve the right (for Stormont) to reopen negotiations later.
Presumably we could have done this anyway (all agreements between nations can be reopened after all if one side insists), but it's nice to have it formalized and conditional on Northern Irish acceptance.
But I would characterize this as a unilateral 'back to negotiations' rather than a unilateral 'exit'.
My sense is he appealed to 2 main types of erstwhile Labour voters - Leavers and those who are not interested in politics. Plenty of overlap there of course.
The reality is that in 2017 no-one thought Corbyn would win, indeed for some time it looked like a TMay landslide. By 2019 even the most apolitical knew what Corbyn was about; that he was fundamentally stupid and to many peoples' sensibilities, very unpatriotic. At that point many people feared he could win.
Also let us remember, it wasn't that long ago politically that people voted for Blair by landslide. He was probably the only genuinely "Europhile" PM in history and all the red wall voters loved him. Europe and Brexit are a lot less important to the average voter than Brexiters fantasise about. 2019 was a vote to stop Corbyn, and while I loathe the fat charlatan, I am slightly grateful we do not have a Corbyn government.
Looking at the last 10 polls he's had net positive approval in 5, net negative in 5, but with an average of plus 1.8% net positive approval.
I don't see how you reconcile that with objectively unpopular.
Furlough through lockdown has worked to avoid the worst of what could have happened.
The 60+ generation are the strongest Brexiteers, the under 40's the most remain. Those demographics would suggest that in 10 years time there will be moves to rejoin.
Brexit's best chance of longevity is it being widely seen as a roaring success. The best most Brexiteers seem to beclaiming is that it won't be too bad.
Plus by having this conditional upon Stormont and agreed with the EU if the time ever does come for new negotiations the situation will be completely different. As it stands the situation is them saying "well you voted for Brexit, you fix it". If no unilateral exit were agreed it would be " well you're trying to change an agreed treaty, you fix it". Whereas having both sides agreeing to this and giving Stormont the power of future negotiations occur it will be due to Stormont not Westminster. It will be a case that the voters of NI aren't happy so all sides need to work constructively to make them happy. Not our fault.
Similar experience - went into John Lewis Home (100%), Pets at Home (100%) Boots ( 1 couple without a mask)
Encouraging early signs, I really expected it to be 50/50 at best.
It will be bad, economically it will get worse before it gets better. But it's not going to be awful.
If 2019 was all down to Corbyn's unpopularity Labour would be ahead in the polls now given Starmer is now Labour leader not Corbyn
The question is *how long* the terrible bit will last. If we have an extreme V shape recovery to a level not far from where the economy was...
I rather think we will see an extreme V shape, but not to the level of where the economy was. So, we will end up with a recession, rather than a long depression.
If Brexit becomes to be widely seen as a disaster it will be in trouble. I was saying this in response to someone suggesting that Brexit would end as a major political force once this generation of politicians retires.
Reagan right yes. Arnold Schwarzenegger right yes. Mitt Romney right yes.
But the religious right? Dubya? Today's GOP? No thanks.
Until the GOP regains sanity I'd rather vote Democrat.