Trump: COVID-19 vaccine may be ready 'right around' Election Day
The Hill
I did say this a week ago. About 10 days before the election he will annouce the vaccine, He will get the army mobilised to deliver it. he will be seen as America's saviour and he will win.
And how many millions of ballots will have been cast before this point?
Obviously there’s no way they can distribute 300m vaccines in 10 days anyway.
It won't matter, Americans will start shouting USA USA USA and vote Trump
Scary I know, but the fact that Trump is not 50 points behind with the madness that he talks shows that Americans are easily pleased.
It shows it is a forced choice in a divided America. My French colleagues tell me what Macron has done wrong but if he only ever has to run off against a card-carrying fascist, it does not really matter, at least for betting purposes.
Trump is a complete arse, a liar and probably corrupt, but he's stopped the Neocons dropping bombs on people, and because he is such a useless president has not actually managed to withdraw Obamacare from his voters. And he only has to beat an old man apparently struggling with marble-lossage.
According to Government figures on the 4th August 65 people were admitted to Hospital in Wales with Covid, only 20 in England. Yesterday 74 were admiited in Wales. This is despite Wales only having a total of 110 in hospital. I wonder why people compiling these stats are not challenging them.
As of yesterday there were 694 in hospital in England. This figure is failling quickly, around 200 each week.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
According to Government figures on the 4th August 65 people were admitted to Hospital in Wales with Covid, only 20 in England. Yesterday 74 were admiited in Wales. This is despite Wales only having a total of 110 in hospital. I wonder why people compiling these stats are not challenging them.
As of yesterday there were 694 in hospital in England. This figure is failling quickly, around 200 each week.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
SKS looks and acts like a dull politician. In this media world it won't cut through. Part of Corbyns charm was that he was a bit mad. People like something different. SKS has no charisma.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
Overall the Tory vote looks to me to be roughly where it was at GE19, Starmer has picked up around 4% off of the Lib Dems. Lib Dem polling looks abysmal - there are precisely 0 Lib Dem targets for Labour though and 1 for the Tories (Farron). The structural changes at GE2019 that yielded the red wall make St Albans safe enough too.
Targets such as Kensington and Wycombe will be easier than Blyth Valley and Don Valley for Labour I reckon (Kensington/Blyth) and (Don/Wycombe) are very close on UNS.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Afternoon all. I must say It's a while since I've met anyone who did think that. After he was elected in December I did.
Of course, I haven't got out much lately, and members of the on-line discussion groups I frequent are broadly anti-Brexit, whether Labour, LibDem or Labour voting.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
According to Government figures on the 4th August 65 people were admitted to Hospital in Wales with Covid, only 20 in England. Yesterday 74 were admiited in Wales. This is despite Wales only having a total of 110 in hospital. I wonder why people compiling these stats are not challenging them.
As of yesterday there were 694 in hospital in England. This figure is failling quickly, around 200 each week.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
Johnson is the key.
It is not Starmer's lofty image that is the problem, it is Johnson's magical pied piper character that will do for Starmer.
Get rid of Johnson (as some have been suggesting over his lamentable Covid-19 performance) and it is game on for Starmer.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Afternoon all. I must say It's a while since I've met anyone who did think that. After he was elected in December I did.
Of course, I haven't got out much lately, and members of the on-line discussion groups I frequent are broadly anti-Brexit, whether Labour, LibDem or Labour voting.
I meet them daily. Johnson has something which you and I can't see but others do.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.
Not my impression in this case. Reading the article, it looks as though the prosecution are seeking the longest possible sentence. One also has to take into account the fact that prosecutions, particularly federal prosecutions, are more politicised than over here.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Afternoon all. I must say It's a while since I've met anyone who did think that. After he was elected in December I did.
Of course, I haven't got out much lately, and members of the on-line discussion groups I frequent are broadly anti-Brexit, whether Labour, LibDem or Labour voting.
I meet them daily. Johnson has something which you and I can't see but others do.
We’ll see when “Brexit” actually means something. When things actually start to change, for the better, or for the worse.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Hmm, as a Biden backer the last thing I want is a firearms/second amendment trench war dominating the election. The key swing voter in Michigan probably owns a gun and thinks they should have a right to do so.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.
Hmm, as a Biden backer the last thing I want is a firearms/second amendment trench war dominating the election. The key swing voter in Michigan probably owns a gun and thinks they should have a right to do so.
The NRA has become very corrupt - quite a few righty gun owners can't stand them because of this.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.
Not if they are unemployed and on universal credit.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
Johnson is the key.
It is not Starmer's lofty image that is the problem, it is Johnson's magical pied piper character that will do for Starmer.
Get rid of Johnson (as some have been suggesting over his lamentable Covid-19 performance) and it is game on for Starmer.
I think you're unnecessarily gloomy. The thing with Johnson (as with Trump) is that those who don't like him at all are unlikely to change their minds and warm to him - he's a polarising figure. So his support will either stay the same or, more likely, diminish. But Starmer can still, potentially, win over many people. Johnson is like marmite - you don't suddenly acquire a taste for it late in life if you've always hated it. Starmer, on the other hand, may be an acquired taste. Too soon to tell.
This is interesting. As we saw with the (bizarre) Kodak deal, the opportunities for graft for those with advance knowledge are potentially considerable. Not that any such thing would happen, of course.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
I've just had a chugger come round for the local hospice. He wasn't wearing a mask. I resisted the temptation to ask if he was trying to drum up business.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
This is interesting. As we saw with the (bizarre) Kodak deal, the opportunities for graft for those with advance knowledge are potentially considerable. Not that any such thing would happen, of course.
Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
I've just had a chugger come round for the local hospice. He wasn't wearing a mask. I resisted the temptation to ask if he was trying to drum up business.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway). That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not often remarked on here, but Europe does seem to be struggling very badly with coronavirus right now. Double digit shrinkages in already ailing economies, rising case numbers, and in at least one case (Germany) big political opposition to renewed restriction measures.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.
Alternatively, they will right up to the moment that they don't, then they will start metaphorically throwing crockery at him. Johnson has lots of experience in his life of getting people's affection. Some / many / most go on to regret that afterwards. The extent to which that happens this time is still to be revealed and is much more important than the details of what his opponents do.
Why is that relevant to the Bloomberg Brexit account, or is this an implied admission that the Bloomberg Brexit account just exists to bash Britain?
Test and Trace isn't perfect, but to some elements of the media, anything less than every single contact padlocked in their house with an armed guard for two weeks seems to be deemed a failure. 80% of contacts is commonly accepted as effective, even if there's room for improvement.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
It is. Would they even get a custodial sentence here?
In America sentences are so ridiculous that it makes sense to shoot anyone who tries to arrest you. Indeed that is part of the problem.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.
Alternatively, they will right up to the moment that they don't, then they will start metaphorically throwing crockery at him. Johnson has lots of experience in his life of getting people's affection. Some / many / most go on to regret that afterwards. The extent to which that happens this time is still to be revealed and is much more important than the details of what his opponents do.
Yes, I think it was you who described him as a seducer, but one incapable of being loved in the longer term.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.
The most effective deterrent to crime is a strong likelihood of being caught & punished. Especially if the punishment follows soon after being caught.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.
I think the explanatiopn of the apparent parafox (Starmer very popular, Tories ahead) is the last poll question. Most voters decided against Labour last time, feeling it wasm't ready to form a government (or worse). They've not heard much from Labour since, except from Starmer, so they now feel Starmer seems quite good but the party, dunno. I think he needs to move on to boosting his team.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway). That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.
The most effective deterrent to crime is a strong likelihood of being caught & punished. Especially if the punishment follows soon after being caught.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.
Yes, and speed of justice too. Criminals are not very good at planning for the future. Events too distant or unlikely to come to pass are not much of a deterrent when the very concept of actions and consequences elude them.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway). That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.
I was speaking to someone who works for NOMS, they don't think Harper's killers will be released at the earliest opportunity.
Based on their illiteracy and lack of remorse alone the benchmark for their release has been raised.
They are going to have show a lot of improvement.
Plus they are a part of the traveller community, they are going to need a permanent place of residence to stay and be supervised when they are released.
England aren't going to avoid the follow on are they?
Probably. 16-3 now. And even in Manchester it's unlikely to rain for a few days.
Alarmingly, the last recognised batsman is at the crease. Admittedly he's got Joe Root for company, but Root's not going to score many runs. So if Pope gets out, we're fecked.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway). That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.
They were children; seems only right to try to re-educate them and give them another start.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway). That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.
I'm not convinced he'll be released before his dotage - too dangerous.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway). That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.
I was speaking to someone who works for NOMS, they don't think Harper's killers will be released at the earliest opportunity.
Based on their illiteracy and lack of remorse alone the benchmark for their release has been raised.
They are going to have show a lot of improvement.
Plus they are a part of the traveller community, they are going to need a permanent place of residence to stay and be supervised when they are released.
Illiteracy is as much a factor in earlier release as lack of remorse?
One of the reasons Liverpool have helped asylum seekers is that Dejan Lovren pushed for things like this, because he too was in a similar both when young when his family fled the Bosnian war.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
The bigger personality almost always wins
You have been promoting this notion for months, and I have disagreed with it for months despite your use of (selective?) polling material.
Johnson is different. With Johnson it is not just a bigger personality. He has a magic which enough people find alluring. The rest of us find it tiresome. Perhaps over time, more will find it less appealing.
Starmer v. Sunak? The magic of Johnson has gone and it's anyone's game.
This is from the same party who sent a list of made up companies for the Government to buy masks from and criticized them for not doing so.
Well it does look as if that was another Labour policy that the Tories pinched, buying inadequate equipment off middlemen in shell companies, just with added cronyism.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.
The most effective deterrent to crime is a strong likelihood of being caught & punished. Especially if the punishment follows soon after being caught.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.
The odd thing is that likelihood of being caught has presumably gone up with cctv everywhere and other forensic techniques, and gone down because for many crimes, the police can't be bothered. And trials can still be an age away, mind. To paraphrase Peter Cook, the exams for being a criminal are not very rigorous.
This is from the same party who sent a list of made up companies for the Government to buy masks from and criticized them for not doing so.
Well it does look as if that was another Labour policy that the Tories pinched, buying inadequate equipment off middlemen in shell companies, just with added cronyism.
The pressure on the government at the time was enormous. Every day Piers Morgan, Beth Rigby and Co. were screeching about lack of equipment, and that is who the government was listening to at the time.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.
The most effective deterrent to crime is a strong likelihood of being caught & punished. Especially if the punishment follows soon after being caught.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.
The odd thing is that likelihood of being caught has presumably gone up with cctv everywhere and other forensic techniques, and gone down because for many crimes, the police can't be bothered. And trials can still be an age away, mind. To paraphrase Peter Cook, the exams for being a criminal are not very rigorous.
Yhe police are probably as quick as they can be, but actually getting people to trial seems to take an age. IANAL, but I believe that a significant part of the delay is due to reforms introduced by a certain C Grayling. a 'friend of the PM's'.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.
That is because of his big ugly mush, they are laughing at him not with him.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway). That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.
I'm not convinced he'll be released before his dotage - too dangerous.
Unless they decide he is criminally insane and chuck him in Norwegian Broadmoor, he would probably pop up as an "influencer" on 8 chan or similar.
Why is that relevant to the Bloomberg Brexit account, or is this an implied admission that the Bloomberg Brexit account just exists to bash Britain?
Test and Trace isn't perfect, but to some elements of the media, anything less than every single contact padlocked in their house with an armed guard for two weeks seems to be deemed a failure. 80% of contacts is commonly accepted as effective, even if there's room for improvement.
Sections of society that are wary of authority means you will never get overall high numbers. It might (by way of an entirely made up scenario) be 90% in white middle England; 50% in the BAME community and 10% in the traveller community.
Or it could be that those who are self-employed white van man types refuse to go along with it, becaue they need the money/don't want to dob in their clients who pay them cash off the books. There was a doctor yesterday on the Jeremy Vine show saying he had to deal with a number of Covid-19 positive people who were refusing to self isolate, even after being told to do so by their GP and then at hospital. Those people aren't going to co-operate with test and trace.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.
That is because of his big ugly mush, they are laughing at him not with him.
He's a capable politician, I'm not sure how he looks matters.
I think there are parallels between Boris and Salmond. No matter if true or not, but Boris' adoption of a slightly shambolic style and Salmond's adoption of smoothy style are interesting contrasts.
Blair's adoption of the 'everyone's mate' is clearly to be avoided.
Late Edit: 'if true or not' - No matter the truth of what they say for these purposes.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
The bigger personality almost always wins
You have been promoting this notion for months, and I have disagreed with it for months despite your use of (selective?) polling material.
Johnson is different. With Johnson it is not just a bigger personality. He has a magic which enough people find alluring. The rest of us find it tiresome. Perhaps over time, more will find it less appealing.
Starmer v. Sunak? The magic of Johnson has gone and it's anyone's game.
"Selective"? Can you justify using that word?
I used the IPSOS MORI "Has x got a lot of personality" question they have asked since 1979, whats selective about that? Were other pollsters showing different scores? By all means come back at me with them
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.
That is because of his big ugly mush, they are laughing at him not with him.
He's a capable politician, I'm not sure how he looks matters.
I think there are parallels between Boris and Salmond. No matter if true or not, but Boris' adoption of a slightly shambolic style and Salmond's adoption of smoothy style are interesting contrasts.
Blair's adoption of the 'everyone's mate' is clearly to be avoided.
It's not inappropriate that Johnson looks, to borrow Spike Milligan's memorable phrase, like a sack of shit tied in the middle.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer.... I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven. Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway). That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.
I was speaking to someone who works for NOMS, they don't think Harper's killers will be released at the earliest opportunity.
Based on their illiteracy and lack of remorse alone the benchmark for their release has been raised.
They are going to have show a lot of improvement.
Plus they are a part of the traveller community, they are going to need a permanent place of residence to stay and be supervised when they are released.
Can their actions in court (laughing at the description of PC Harper's death, for one) be classified as some kind of offence?
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.
That is because of his big ugly mush, they are laughing at him not with him.
He's a capable politician, I'm not sure how he looks matters.
I think there are parallels between Boris and Salmond. No matter if true or not, but Boris' adoption of a slightly shambolic style and Salmond's adoption of smoothy style are interesting contrasts.
Blair's adoption of the 'everyone's mate' is clearly to be avoided.
It's not inappropriate that Johnson looks, to borrow Spike Milligan's memorable phrase, like a sack of shit tied in the middle.
Many of us have looked that way, and I suspect almost all of us have felt that way.
Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
I've just had a chugger come round for the local hospice. He wasn't wearing a mask. I resisted the temptation to ask if he was trying to drum up business.
Comments
Trump is a complete arse, a liar and probably corrupt, but he's stopped the Neocons dropping bombs on people, and because he is such a useless president has not actually managed to withdraw Obamacare from his voters. And he only has to beat an old man apparently struggling with marble-lossage.
As of yesterday there were 694 in hospital in England. This figure is failling quickly, around 200 each week.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Industrial scale cheating is on the cards. If is not in the Whitehouse on January 21st he winds up in a New York state penetentiary soon after!
Last 3-5 days..... don't
Last 3-5 days..... don't
Last 3-5 days..... don't
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
Lib Dem polling looks abysmal - there are precisely 0 Lib Dem targets for Labour though and 1 for the Tories (Farron). The structural changes at GE2019 that yielded the red wall make St Albans safe enough too.
Targets such as Kensington and Wycombe will be easier than Blyth Valley and Don Valley for Labour I reckon (Kensington/Blyth) and (Don/Wycombe) are very close on UNS.
Of course, I haven't got out much lately, and members of the on-line discussion groups I frequent are broadly anti-Brexit, whether Labour, LibDem or Labour voting.
It is not Starmer's lofty image that is the problem, it is Johnson's magical pied piper character that will do for Starmer.
Get rid of Johnson (as some have been suggesting over his lamentable Covid-19 performance) and it is game on for Starmer.
Reading the article, it looks as though the prosecution are seeking the longest possible sentence. One also has to take into account the fact that prosecutions, particularly federal prosecutions, are more politicised than over here.
As we saw with the (bizarre) Kodak deal, the opportunities for graft for those with advance knowledge are potentially considerable.
Not that any such thing would happen, of course.
https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1291374822325391360
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
*quick Google*
Yep.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53534950
So these orders are almost certainly for graft, as they are otherwise illogical.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-joe-biden-campaign-door-knockers-391454
I'm not sure how that will play out.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
If he's a Neil Kinnock that's good enough for me
Inter alia, the SDP split, a Tory majority of 144, and the Tories were doing well in the eyes of the voters, particularly the economy.
Test and Trace isn't perfect, but to some elements of the media, anything less than every single contact padlocked in their house with an armed guard for two weeks seems to be deemed a failure. 80% of contacts is commonly accepted as effective, even if there's room for improvement.
In America sentences are so ridiculous that it makes sense to shoot anyone who tries to arrest you. Indeed that is part of the problem.
Boom Boom.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.
Based on their illiteracy and lack of remorse alone the benchmark for their release has been raised.
They are going to have show a lot of improvement.
Plus they are a part of the traveller community, they are going to need a permanent place of residence to stay and be supervised when they are released.
And then it's the tail - Buttler, Woakes, Bess.
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1291409656691269636
Johnson is different. With Johnson it is not just a bigger personality. He has a magic which enough people find alluring. The rest of us find it tiresome. Perhaps over time, more will find it less appealing.
Starmer v. Sunak? The magic of Johnson has gone and it's anyone's game.
They need to show that they have improved and learned what they did was wrong.
If they maintain their level of illiteracy then they aren't going to pass some criteria for release.
They will need to show why they realise what they did was wrong.
They invited Generation Identity's UK Leader on after the Christchurch shootings.
Ripe for the taking.
Or it could be that those who are self-employed white van man types refuse to go along with it, becaue they need the money/don't want to dob in their clients who pay them cash off the books. There was a doctor yesterday on the Jeremy Vine show saying he had to deal with a number of Covid-19 positive people who were refusing to self isolate, even after being told to do so by their GP and then at hospital. Those people aren't going to co-operate with test and trace.
I think there are parallels between Boris and Salmond. No matter if true or not, but Boris' adoption of a slightly shambolic style and Salmond's adoption of smoothy style are interesting contrasts.
Blair's adoption of the 'everyone's mate' is clearly to be avoided.
Late Edit: 'if true or not' - No matter the truth of what they say for these purposes.
I used the IPSOS MORI "Has x got a lot of personality" question they have asked since 1979, whats selective about that? Were other pollsters showing different scores? By all means come back at me with them
Amazing to think he could be bowling in a school team.
If you're still alive that is.