The Dems screwed it up badly week. The over egged their attacks on Trump and presented them selves as holier than thou merchants. No one likes a smart arse.
But that's what they are. No one was stupid enough to use Hilary's "contemptibles" but their disdain for the poorly educated white voter who has a really hard time of it in the US, and indeed here, is palpable.
These people don't want to be lectured on diversity or sexual politics, they want jobs, security, bread on the table and, just maybe, a little bit of respect. Trump engages with them. You can argue all day as to whether or not his policies are actually good for them but he engages. I'm trying to remember the last Democrat that did: Bill Clinton probably.
It's a challenge for the left these days, and has been for at least the last 20 years. Most of us intellectual lefties got into politics because we felt that poverty was horrible and we should have policies that helped people on low incomes turn their lives around even if it means people like us paying more. (Put aside for a moment the discussion of which policies - housing, education, benefits, health - do really help.) But in Broxtowe it was simply a fact that if we focused on canvassing the areas of greatest deprivation, we would still see low turnout there, whereas if we went for the areas with lots of teachers, nurses, etc. we would get a rich harvest (and if we didn't, they'd drift to the LibDems).
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
I think that most of the traditional Tory demographic will stick with the party whatever it does. There will always be a reason to. Labour's challenge is that we have totally lost sight of the values and aspirations that most voters possess. We are seen as actively opposed to them. This is Starmer's challenge. The Tories will never be ashamed of waving the falg. Too many in Labour genuinely are. This gives the Tories a huge advantage going into every election. Blair got this - and it was never an issue prior to the 1980s.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
Could the betting be moved by republican canvassers or their links who are seeing something very different on the ground to what the polls are showing?
We saw that article on here reporting they are confident.
Plus Biden's if you ain;t a democrat you aint black comment. Could there be a 'black wall'; event here similar to the 'red wall' event in the UK, where the black vote is a no show for Biden or even drifts to Trump?
There's certainly a number of black Republicans making themselves heard at the moment - Kim Klacik in Baltimore and Billy Prempeh in New Jersey to give two examples, both standing for Congress.
Klacik's video was mightily impressive. One to watch for the future. Big time.
The Dems screwed it up badly week. The over egged their attacks on Trump and presented them selves as holier than thou merchants. No one likes a smart arse.
But that's what they are. No one was stupid enough to use Hilary's "contemptibles" but their disdain for the poorly educated white voter who has a really hard time of it in the US, and indeed here, is palpable.
These people don't want to be lectured on diversity or sexual politics, they want jobs, security, bread on the table and, just maybe, a little bit of respect. Trump engages with them. You can argue all day as to whether or not his policies are actually good for them but he engages. I'm trying to remember the last Democrat that did: Bill Clinton probably.
It's a challenge for the left these days, and has been for at least the last 20 years. Most of us intellectual lefties got into politics because we felt that poverty was horrible and we should have policies that helped people on low incomes turn their lives around even if it means people like us paying more. (Put aside for a moment the discussion of which policies - housing, education, benefits, health - do really help.) But in Broxtowe it was simply a fact that if we focused on canvassing the areas of greatest deprivation, we would still see low turnout there, whereas if we went for the areas with lots of teachers, nurses, etc. we would get a rich harvest (and if we didn't, they'd drift to the LibDems).
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
That seems a convoluted way to make the argument. Isn't it more fundamentally that both your and our members and activists, and hence those who both decide things within the party and who become elected representatives, are almost all concerned middle classes types and rarely from what you term the sink estates? Within Labour even the old route from union to parliament (cf Alan Johnson, and many more in the 70s and 80s) appears rare nowadays.
I think the post 2015 intake of Labour MPs does include fewer SPADs and more true diversity.
The rise of Angela Rayner (who Starmer should make better use of) to Deputy Leader is a good example. Her political antennae are pretty good, and she injects a bit of passion.
I agree with Nick though, if people don't vote, then parties will ignore them. Labour also speaks too much of those in the bottom 10%, while ignoring those only marginally better off.
Perhaps Labour's biggest problem though is the collapse of private sector and manufacturing unions. If the only unions with a voice are NHS, Civil Service, Council workers and teachers then that is too small of base.
Employment has changed, and Labour needs to look more at the employment issues of the working poor. There is a place for ZHC and portfolio gig working, but for corporations to use it as a way around employment law should clearly be unacceptable.
You are right that Rayner is a good counter-example. But the route from union to parliament nowadays is more likely to be the university educated middle class wannabe politico who spends a few years working as a researcher at Union HQ while waiting for his acne to clear.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
I really like the tone of that article. The Tories need to engage across a much wider spectrum than independence/Indyref2, they need policies on schools, universities, employment and health. A very long way to go but its a good start.
A view from somebody that has little interest in US politics but a keen interest in betting (I assumed this was a betting site but it seems plenty on here have zero understanding of odds or %)
4 years ago I wrongly assumed Trump had no chance, it seems most people think the same now. I think there's a chance that the BLM etc will play into his hands, that the Democrats seem to be appeasing them which appalls much of America. Lets call them shy Republicans.
I've got no dog in this fight and its Biden's to lose, but I think Americans will hold their noses and vote Trump in big numbers rather than take a chance on Biden.
And the outcome won't affect my life in any shape or form, just an impartial observation. Looking at the betfair market I'm not alone.
He's on 45% who are these people who think he has no chance?
Yup, I think I'm on the extreme Biden-bull end of the spectrum here, I think Trump's chances are in the low 20%s, I don't think I've seen anyone saying it's a dead cert. Also not really sure who here the "zero understanding of odds" is supposed to be subtweeting.
Personally, I find the 538 analysis seems about right- currently a 30% chance for Trump to win.
I really like the tone of that article. The Tories need to engage across a much wider spectrum than independence/Indyref2, they need policies on schools, universities, employment and health. A very long way to go but its a good start.
Interesting he talks about the £2000 Scottish dividend. Isn't that a ~ £200 cost for everyone else in the union
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
The Dems screwed it up badly week. The over egged their attacks on Trump and presented them selves as holier than thou merchants. No one likes a smart arse.
But that's what they are. No one was stupid enough to use Hilary's "contemptibles" but their disdain for the poorly educated white voter who has a really hard time of it in the US, and indeed here, is palpable.
These people don't want to be lectured on diversity or sexual politics, they want jobs, security, bread on the table and, just maybe, a little bit of respect. Trump engages with them. You can argue all day as to whether or not his policies are actually good for them but he engages. I'm trying to remember the last Democrat that did: Bill Clinton probably.
It's a challenge for the left these days, and has been for at least the last 20 years. Most of us intellectual lefties got into politics because we felt that poverty was horrible and we should have policies that helped people on low incomes turn their lives around even if it means people like us paying more. (Put aside for a moment the discussion of which policies - housing, education, benefits, health - do really help.) But in Broxtowe it was simply a fact that if we focused on canvassing the areas of greatest deprivation, we would still see low turnout there, whereas if we went for the areas with lots of teachers, nurses, etc. we would get a rich harvest (and if we didn't, they'd drift to the LibDems).
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
Good post. I agree with what you say about right wingers too. We see that daily on here from very traditional Conservatives who simply have no time for Boris, mainly because of Brexit but also because of his fiscal profligacy and questionable personal morals.
But the Labour party has the biggest problem, it is completely dominated by the middle classes, the public sector and the educated. Inevitably its interests reflect their concerns rather than the people it was actually supposed to be for. When the Tories neglected them too it maybe didn't matter so much but Boris has reached out to them and Labour have found re-engaging with them difficult.
It is the traditional problem of politics - build a coalition (internal to a party or of multiple parties) - that is broad enough to win, while not alienating core supporters to the point of creating a vote a mile wide and a hairsbreadth "deep".
I used to think he'd go the distance but now I am not sure. He looks like absolute shit and has discovered being PM is a pain in the dick. He's never show any interest in any of his other families so I doubt Carrie and little Dom Jr or whatever the fuck it's called will be any different. He'll be ready for a change of scenery and a fresh cock holster next year.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
Life is so much easier when you are a teetotaller
I am so very tempted. I try not to drink midweek then have a bottle of wine on a Friday and a bottle of wine on a Saturday. In lockdown, I have begun to have a couple of glasses on a Sunday also.
But I feel so much better during the week when I'm not drinking that if in the not too distant future I do give up completely I know it will be a good thing.
Also experimenting with vastly overpriced bottles of water gin substitutes eg Seedlip and recently, Clean Liquor Co (1% abv). Of the alcohol-free beers, Peroni Libera is by far the best and I put a lemonade top (but no umbrella) in one or two of those most nights.
A view from somebody that has little interest in US politics but a keen interest in betting (I assumed this was a betting site but it seems plenty on here have zero understanding of odds or %)
4 years ago I wrongly assumed Trump had no chance, it seems most people think the same now. I think there's a chance that the BLM etc will play into his hands, that the Democrats seem to be appeasing them which appalls much of America. Lets call them shy Republicans.
I've got no dog in this fight and its Biden's to lose, but I think Americans will hold their noses and vote Trump in big numbers rather than take a chance on Biden.
And the outcome won't affect my life in any shape or form, just an impartial observation. Looking at the betfair market I'm not alone.
He's on 45% who are these people who think he has no chance?
Those I've read on here, can't remember their names.
Its why bookies make money out of football betting, supporters back who they want to win regardless of the odds.
As I've said, I've no interest in who wins beyond a betting angle
This post is tawdry in sentiment and sloppy in thought and analysis.
No interest in who is the US president? No interest in any political outcome that won't affect your life? I expect you think that is being all grown up and detached and mature. It isn't.
It is palpably not the case that people bet on who they want to win regardless of the odds. Some do but the opposite is common too. Many people are inclined to bet on what they fear or dread coming to pass. Your team losing the final. The politician you despise coming to or retaining power. The emotional hedge, aka overpriced insurance, driven by the irrational pessimism which is as much a part of human nature as blind optimism is, perhaps more so.
As for Donald Trump, his price at 2.16 is much shorter than the probability implied by the polls and election models. Therefore what you say is happening - that most people are assuming he has no chance - is the dead opposite of what is actually happening. What is actually happening is that people are assuming, despite the balance of the current evidence, that he has a great chance.
Followup question- what happens to Dom when his current monkey keels over?
Gove would presumably keep him on, but would Rishi?
He might do, he'd probably want his own team in though. The difference is if Rishi did keep him on (And Dom does have plenty of ideas) he wouldn't need to rely on him in the same way Boris obviously does.
The Dems screwed it up badly week. The over egged their attacks on Trump and presented them selves as holier than thou merchants. No one likes a smart arse.
But that's what they are. No one was stupid enough to use Hilary's "contemptibles" but their disdain for the poorly educated white voter who has a really hard time of it in the US, and indeed here, is palpable.
These people don't want to be lectured on diversity or sexual politics, they want jobs, security, bread on the table and, just maybe, a little bit of respect. Trump engages with them. You can argue all day as to whether or not his policies are actually good for them but he engages. I'm trying to remember the last Democrat that did: Bill Clinton probably.
It's a challenge for the left these days, and has been for at least the last 20 years. Most of us intellectual lefties got into politics because we felt that poverty was horrible and we should have policies that helped people on low incomes turn their lives around even if it means people like us paying more. (Put aside for a moment the discussion of which policies - housing, education, benefits, health - do really help.) But in Broxtowe it was simply a fact that if we focused on canvassing the areas of greatest deprivation, we would still see low turnout there, whereas if we went for the areas with lots of teachers, nurses, etc. we would get a rich harvest (and if we didn't, they'd drift to the LibDems).
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
I think that most of the traditional Tory demographic will stick with the party whatever it does. There will always be a reason to. Labour's challenge is that we have totally lost sight of the values and aspirations that most voters possess. We are seen as actively opposed to them. This is Starmer's challenge. The Tories will never be ashamed of waving the falg. Too many in Labour genuinely are. This gives the Tories a huge advantage going into every election. Blair got this - and it was never an issue prior to the 1980s.
As mentioned by some posters on the Guardian yesterday, this depends what you mean by waving the flag. Harold Wilson, who Starmer says he wants to emulate, was more publicly patriotic and traditional in that sense than Corbyn, but confidently kept Britain out of Vietnam, and never sought to publicly portray himself as a war leader.
Blair, on the other hand, was so keen to assimilate and neutralise many traditional tory values that he included in that an essentially jingoistic and symbolic contribution to transatlantic militarism.
I really like the tone of that article. The Tories need to engage across a much wider spectrum than independence/Indyref2, they need policies on schools, universities, employment and health. A very long way to go but its a good start.
Interesting he talks about the £2000 Scottish dividend. Isn't that a ~ £200 cost for everyone else in the union
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
Life is so much easier when you are a teetotaller
I am so very tempted. I try not to drink midweek then have a bottle of wine on a Friday and a bottle of wine on a Saturday. In lockdown, I have begun to have a couple of glasses on a Sunday also.
But I feel so much better during the week when I'm not drinking that if in the not too distant future I do give up completely I know it will be a good thing.
Also experimenting with vastly overpriced bottles of water gin substitutes eg Seedlip and recently, Clean Liquor Co (1% abv). Of the alcohol-free beers, Peroni Libera is by far the best and I put a lemonade top (but no umbrella) in one or two of those most nights.
The major downside of being teetotal is having "DESIGNATED DRIVER" tattooed on your forehead.
That - and seeing how tedious really drunk people become.
I have always thought Trump would win because he controls the means to make it happen. Voter suppression will be off the scale and there are enough Republican judges in the right places to ensure that it is successful. Where that leaves the US as a democracy and even as a viable country is another matter altogether. Trump and his supporters care very little about either, though.
You are a good example of what I reference in my last post - a deep pessimist who often wildly overstates the chances of something you dread happening, happening.
Like, I bet you still think No Deal is a strong favourite, don't you?
this law and order topic will have possibly lost enough heat by Nov to be no longer relevant, if Covid is still an issue (its proving resilient to say the least) then Biden should be home.....9 weeks is a long time though
Oh, it could go either way. It could be close, or it could be a landslide. Be wary of anyone peddling certainty here.
But remember one thing. Biden's current polling position is unprecedented. No other candidate since Reagan in '84 has averaged more than 50% in the polling in August.
Now sure, trump can still win, but every day his task becomes a little bit harder.
But a Trump victory would be very surprising, surely? IIRC he only defeated Clinton with a combination of very narrow victories in several key states. The Dems go into this election with a much less divisive candidate and with voters having had four years' experience of Trump in office; after everything that's happened, are enough independent voters really going to back the incumbent to get him over the finishing line again?
As suggested above, much of the body of opinion that believes Trump can win in 2020 appears to expect a straight repetition of 2016. I do wonder if that's primarily the result of fatalism/pessimism amongst those fearing such an outcome? We've recent experience of that over here, of course: after the UK came within a hair's breadth of Prime Minister Corbyn in 2017, many of us feared that all the polls were wrong, and that several million wavering Labour voters would go all robot and respond to their homing signals in the polling booth, right up until 10pm on election night when the exit poll came out.
I don't think that a Biden victory is a foregone conclusion, mainly because of voter suppression tactics, but the notion that Trump is a 45% chance is risible. 20% perhaps...?
Did not the 2016 Dem campaign spend an unnecessary amount of time and effort in safe states, such as California? Yes, of course one needs to 'cosset' the faithful a bit, but surely the heavy effort needs to go to those places where ensuring just a few more of your sides wavers actually turn out and vote for you.
Yep, in 2016 Hilary spent time in California trying to raise money, and not in the marginal Midwest states as her team “didn’t want people to think they were ‘in play’ but rather safe for her”. There were three or four states that went 51-49 for Trump. In Michigan there were only 11,000 votes betweeen the candidates, out of five million cast. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were less than 1% between them too. A couple of hundred thousand votes in the right places could have made the difference - and still could make the difference in this election too.
Obviously there has to be some balance, but equally obviously the Dem campaign in 2016 got it wrong. Didn't get a lot of Tory campaigning round here, in 'safe' Witham and Braintree, last December, for example.
As mentioned last night a tie, 269-269 is now a serious possibility.
It happens if Biden holds the Hillary states and picks up Michigan and Pennsylvania but no more Trump states and Nebraska 02 which Trump won by just 2% in 2016 and which Obama won in 2008 and where the latest polls have Biden ahead
The Tories will never be ashamed of waving the flag. Too many in Labour genuinely are.
Which flag?
The Conservative and Unionist Party was never afraid to fly the Union Flag.
The Little Englanders currently in charge, not so much...
They use the cross of St George! As someone of Welsh heritage I find that being portrayed as 'our' national flag mildly offensive. I know I live in England, but, but but.
The populist right has moved on from homosexuality to immigration, as the polling shows even amongst those in the UK for whom religion is important to them a majority now do not see homosexuality as wrong
In 1983 67% of Labour voters, 61% of Tories and 48% of Alliance voters thought homosexuality was wrong, by 2012 just 35% of Tories, 29% of Labour voters and 22% of LDs saw homosexuality as wrong. There has been a sea change on the issue
this law and order topic will have possibly lost enough heat by Nov to be no longer relevant, if Covid is still an issue (its proving resilient to say the least) then Biden should be home.....9 weeks is a long time though
Oh, it could go either way. It could be close, or it could be a landslide. Be wary of anyone peddling certainty here.
But remember one thing. Biden's current polling position is unprecedented. No other candidate since Reagan in '84 has averaged more than 50% in the polling in August.
Now sure, trump can still win, but every day his task becomes a little bit harder.
But a Trump victory would be very surprising, surely? IIRC he only defeated Clinton with a combination of very narrow victories in several key states. The Dems go into this election with a much less divisive candidate and with voters having had four years' experience of Trump in office; after everything that's happened, are enough independent voters really going to back the incumbent to get him over the finishing line again?
As suggested above, much of the body of opinion that believes Trump can win in 2020 appears to expect a straight repetition of 2016. I do wonder if that's primarily the result of fatalism/pessimism amongst those fearing such an outcome? We've recent experience of that over here, of course: after the UK came within a hair's breadth of Prime Minister Corbyn in 2017, many of us feared that all the polls were wrong, and that several million wavering Labour voters would go all robot and respond to their homing signals in the polling booth, right up until 10pm on election night when the exit poll came out.
I don't think that a Biden victory is a foregone conclusion, mainly because of voter suppression tactics, but the notion that Trump is a 45% chance is risible. 20% perhaps...?
Did not the 2016 Dem campaign spend an unnecessary amount of time and effort in safe states, such as California? Yes, of course one needs to 'cosset' the faithful a bit, but surely the heavy effort needs to go to those places where ensuring just a few more of your sides wavers actually turn out and vote for you.
Yep, in 2016 Hilary spent time in California trying to raise money, and not in the marginal Midwest states as her team “didn’t want people to think they were ‘in play’ but rather safe for her”. There were three or four states that went 51-49 for Trump. In Michigan there were only 11,000 votes betweeen the candidates, out of five million cast. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were less than 1% between them too. A couple of hundred thousand votes in the right places could have made the difference - and still could make the difference in this election too.
Obviously there has to be some balance, but equally obviously the Dem campaign in 2016 got it wrong. Didn't get a lot of Tory campaigning round here, in 'safe' Witham and Braintree, last December, for example.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 and 2001
And what a very good MP Alan Hurst was! Especially when compared, to Brooks Newmark. Significantly constituency boundaries, though.
I really like the tone of that article. The Tories need to engage across a much wider spectrum than independence/Indyref2, they need policies on schools, universities, employment and health. A very long way to go but its a good start.
Yes - the Scottish Tories need to be more than the "anti-SNP"
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
Life is so much easier when you are a teetotaller
I am so very tempted. I try not to drink midweek then have a bottle of wine on a Friday and a bottle of wine on a Saturday. In lockdown, I have begun to have a couple of glasses on a Sunday also.
But I feel so much better during the week when I'm not drinking that if in the not too distant future I do give up completely I know it will be a good thing.
Also experimenting with vastly overpriced bottles of water gin substitutes eg Seedlip and recently, Clean Liquor Co (1% abv). Of the alcohol-free beers, Peroni Libera is by far the best and I put a lemonade top (but no umbrella) in one or two of those most nights.
I had about 4 months off when this Covid nonsense started in an attempt to get healthier but my wine consumption is now almost identical to yours. Can't remember when I last had spirits, pretty sure it was not this year.
I really like the tone of that article. The Tories need to engage across a much wider spectrum than independence/Indyref2, they need policies on schools, universities, employment and health. A very long way to go but its a good start.
Interesting he talks about the £2000 Scottish dividend. Isn't that a ~ £200 cost for everyone else in the union
I really like the tone of that article. The Tories need to engage across a much wider spectrum than independence/Indyref2, they need policies on schools, universities, employment and health. A very long way to go but its a good start.
Yes - the Scottish Tories need to be more than the "anti-SNP"
Yes, no longer are they the anti-SNP they are pitching themselves as the opposition to Boris. Which is pretty smart.
It's a challenge for the left these days, and has been for at least the last 20 years. Most of us intellectual lefties got into politics because we felt that poverty was horrible and we should have policies that helped people on low incomes turn their lives around even if it means people like us paying more. (Put aside for a moment the discussion of which policies - housing, education, benefits, health - do really help.) But in Broxtowe it was simply a fact that if we focused on canvassing the areas of greatest deprivation, we would still see low turnout there, whereas if we went for the areas with lots of teachers, nurses, etc. we would get a rich harvest (and if we didn't, they'd drift to the LibDems).
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
A very interesting post, as so often.
I've always thought that the shrewd politician throws a little red meat and a few dog whistles at his base, while reaching out to floating voters. The two recent serial election winners, Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, were outstanding at doing that. While Gordon Brown and Theresa May, the two recent failures, were much more politicians of the core vote (and Jeremy Corbyn was the core vote politician par excellence). David Cameron and John Major were somewhere between the two groups.
this law and order topic will have possibly lost enough heat by Nov to be no longer relevant, if Covid is still an issue (its proving resilient to say the least) then Biden should be home.....9 weeks is a long time though
Oh, it could go either way. It could be close, or it could be a landslide. Be wary of anyone peddling certainty here.
But remember one thing. Biden's current polling position is unprecedented. No other candidate since Reagan in '84 has averaged more than 50% in the polling in August.
Now sure, trump can still win, but every day his task becomes a little bit harder.
But a Trump victory would be very surprising, surely? IIRC he only defeated Clinton with a combination of very narrow victories in several key states. The Dems go into this election with a much less divisive candidate and with voters having had four years' experience of Trump in office; after everything that's happened, are enough independent voters really going to back the incumbent to get him over the finishing line again?
As suggested above, much of the body of opinion that believes Trump can win in 2020 appears to expect a straight repetition of 2016. I do wonder if that's primarily the result of fatalism/pessimism amongst those fearing such an outcome? We've recent experience of that over here, of course: after the UK came within a hair's breadth of Prime Minister Corbyn in 2017, many of us feared that all the polls were wrong, and that several million wavering Labour voters would go all robot and respond to their homing signals in the polling booth, right up until 10pm on election night when the exit poll came out.
I don't think that a Biden victory is a foregone conclusion, mainly because of voter suppression tactics, but the notion that Trump is a 45% chance is risible. 20% perhaps...?
Did not the 2016 Dem campaign spend an unnecessary amount of time and effort in safe states, such as California? Yes, of course one needs to 'cosset' the faithful a bit, but surely the heavy effort needs to go to those places where ensuring just a few more of your sides wavers actually turn out and vote for you.
Yep, in 2016 Hilary spent time in California trying to raise money, and not in the marginal Midwest states as her team “didn’t want people to think they were ‘in play’ but rather safe for her”. There were three or four states that went 51-49 for Trump. In Michigan there were only 11,000 votes betweeen the candidates, out of five million cast. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were less than 1% between them too. A couple of hundred thousand votes in the right places could have made the difference - and still could make the difference in this election too.
Obviously there has to be some balance, but equally obviously the Dem campaign in 2016 got it wrong. Didn't get a lot of Tory campaigning round here, in 'safe' Witham and Braintree, last December, for example.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 and 2001
And what a very good MP Alan Hurst was! Especially when compared, to Brooks Newmark. Significantly constituency boundaries, though.
The Dems screwed it up badly week. The over egged their attacks on Trump and presented them selves as holier than thou merchants. No one likes a smart arse.
But that's what they are. No one was stupid enough to use Hilary's "contemptibles" but their disdain for the poorly educated white voter who has a really hard time of it in the US, and indeed here, is palpable.
These people don't want to be lectured on diversity or sexual politics, they want jobs, security, bread on the table and, just maybe, a little bit of respect. Trump engages with them. You can argue all day as to whether or not his policies are actually good for them but he engages. I'm trying to remember the last Democrat that did: Bill Clinton probably.
It's a challenge for the left these days, and has been for at least the last 20 years. Most of us intellectual lefties got into politics because we felt that poverty was horrible and we should have policies that helped people on low incomes turn their lives around even if it means people like us paying more. (Put aside for a moment the discussion of which policies - housing, education, benefits, health - do really help.) But in Broxtowe it was simply a fact that if we focused on canvassing the areas of greatest deprivation, we would still see low turnout there, whereas if we went for the areas with lots of teachers, nurses, etc. we would get a rich harvest (and if we didn't, they'd drift to the LibDems).
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
I think that most of the traditional Tory demographic will stick with the party whatever it does. There will always be a reason to. Labour's challenge is that we have totally lost sight of the values and aspirations that most voters possess. We are seen as actively opposed to them. This is Starmer's challenge. The Tories will never be ashamed of waving the falg. Too many in Labour genuinely are. This gives the Tories a huge advantage going into every election. Blair got this - and it was never an issue prior to the 1980s.
Oh come off it SO. It certainly was an issue prior to the 1980s. The point was that after the defenestration of Lansbury until the time of Foot (unfairly) it was an issue difficult to pin convincingly on the actual leadership of the party. When Laski said that Labour’s foreign policy would be controlled by the membership, Attlee shut him up sharpish. When Corbyn openly flirted with interests hostile to the UK, too many idiots in Labour applauded him.
If you doubt me, here is Robert Blake writing in 1970:
‘This then was Disraeli’s lasting contribution to the Conservative party. He made it the national party...Again and again in the years to come the Conservatives were to try and pin the label of spiritual upon first their Liberal and then their Labour opponents, and if they did not always succeed, they managed to do it often enough to make this one of their most profitable moves in the party game...Nor was it simply a trick or a gimmick. If the Left has so often found itself pilloried as the anti-National party, this is because it has so often contained members who behaved as if they were a friend of every country but their own.’
For more information on how long this has been an issue try Paul Ward, Red Flag and Union Jack: Englishness, Patriotism and the British Left, 1881-1924 (London 2011).
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
As mentioned last night a tie, 269-269 is now a serious possibility.
It happens if Biden holds the Hillary states and picks up Michigan and Pennsylvania but no more Trump states and Nebraska 02 which Trump won by just 2% in 2016 and which Obama won in 2008 and where the latest polls have Biden ahead
Has anyone studied the result if this would have happened?
I do not know but it fits with what Dominic Cummings and Arron Banks have each said, and also with the finding that austerity was linked with voting Leave.
Anyone able to answer why a black man who’s t shirt is held by a policeman is shot seven times in the back whilst a 17 year old armed white can walk down the street, still armed with finger on trigger after shooting three people, two of which have died And the police do nothing?
The Dems screwed it up badly week. The over egged their attacks on Trump and presented them selves as holier than thou merchants. No one likes a smart arse.
But that's what they are. No one was stupid enough to use Hilary's "contemptibles" but their disdain for the poorly educated white voter who has a really hard time of it in the US, and indeed here, is palpable.
These people don't want to be lectured on diversity or sexual politics, they want jobs, security, bread on the table and, just maybe, a little bit of respect. Trump engages with them. You can argue all day as to whether or not his policies are actually good for them but he engages. I'm trying to remember the last Democrat that did: Bill Clinton probably.
It's a challenge for the left these days, and has been for at least the last 20 years. Most of us intellectual lefties got into politics because we felt that poverty was horrible and we should have policies that helped people on low incomes turn their lives around even if it means people like us paying more. (Put aside for a moment the discussion of which policies - housing, education, benefits, health - do really help.) But in Broxtowe it was simply a fact that if we focused on canvassing the areas of greatest deprivation, we would still see low turnout there, whereas if we went for the areas with lots of teachers, nurses, etc. we would get a rich harvest (and if we didn't, they'd drift to the LibDems).
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
I think that most of the traditional Tory demographic will stick with the party whatever it does. There will always be a reason to. Labour's challenge is that we have totally lost sight of the values and aspirations that most voters possess. We are seen as actively opposed to them. This is Starmer's challenge. The Tories will never be ashamed of waving the falg. Too many in Labour genuinely are. This gives the Tories a huge advantage going into every election. Blair got this - and it was never an issue prior to the 1980s.
Oh come off it SO. It certainly was an issue prior to the 1980s. The point was that after the defenestration of Lansbury until the time of Foot (unfairly) it was an issue difficult to pin convincingly on the actual leadership of the party. When Laski said that Labour’s foreign policy would be controlled by the membership, Attlee shut him up sharpish. When Corbyn openly flirted with interests hostile to the UK, too many idiots in Labour applauded him.
If you doubt me, here is Robert Blake writing in 1970:
‘This then was Disraeli’s lasting contribution to the Conservative party. He made it the national party...Again and again in the years to come the Conservatives were to try and pin the label of spiritual upon first their Liberal and then their Labour opponents, and if they did not always succeed, they managed to do it often enough to make this one of their most profitable moves in the party game...Nor was it simply a trick or a gimmick. If the Left has so often found itself pilloried as the anti-National party, this is because it has so often contained members who behaved as if they were a friend of every country but their own.’
For more information on how long this has been an issue try Paul Ward, Red Flag and Union Jack: Englishness, Patriotism and the British Left, 1881-1924 (London 2011).
A number of posters covered this on a similar thread on the Guardian yesterday, interestingly. A significant proportion of Labour members, both working and middle class, have been sceptical of nationalism since its creation.
This goes back, as hinted at in your post, partly to the heritage of Christian Socialism, and even further, to the many waves of radical Dissenters and protestant communitarian groups.
As mentioned last night a tie, 269-269 is now a serious possibility.
It happens if Biden holds the Hillary states and picks up Michigan and Pennsylvania but no more Trump states and Nebraska 02 which Trump won by just 2% in 2016 and which Obama won in 2008 and where the latest polls have Biden ahead
Off topic, if anyone has a Kindle and 99p to spare, there is a very good history of GCHQ on Amazon by Richard Aldrich. Some riveting stuff there that I didn't know about, e.g.:
- the Heath government wanted to give up our base on Cyprus, but the Americans stopped them - the traitor Prime was only caught by a fluke - the Russians spied on the Argentinian fleet during the Falklands War with high-level aircraft, and the Norwegians tapped the Russian communications and passed the info onto us - the Israelis trained the Argentinian military during the conflict.
this law and order topic will have possibly lost enough heat by Nov to be no longer relevant, if Covid is still an issue (its proving resilient to say the least) then Biden should be home.....9 weeks is a long time though
Oh, it could go either way. It could be close, or it could be a landslide. Be wary of anyone peddling certainty here.
But remember one thing. Biden's current polling position is unprecedented. No other candidate since Reagan in '84 has averaged more than 50% in the polling in August.
Now sure, trump can still win, but every day his task becomes a little bit harder.
But a Trump victory would be very surprising, surely? IIRC he only defeated Clinton with a combination of very narrow victories in several key states. The Dems go into this election with a much less divisive candidate and with voters having had four years' experience of Trump in office; after everything that's happened, are enough independent voters really going to back the incumbent to get him over the finishing line again?
As suggested above, much of the body of opinion that believes Trump can win in 2020 appears to expect a straight repetition of 2016. I do wonder if that's primarily the result of fatalism/pessimism amongst those fearing such an outcome? We've recent experience of that over here, of course: after the UK came within a hair's breadth of Prime Minister Corbyn in 2017, many of us feared that all the polls were wrong, and that several million wavering Labour voters would go all robot and respond to their homing signals in the polling booth, right up until 10pm on election night when the exit poll came out.
I don't think that a Biden victory is a foregone conclusion, mainly because of voter suppression tactics, but the notion that Trump is a 45% chance is risible. 20% perhaps...?
Did not the 2016 Dem campaign spend an unnecessary amount of time and effort in safe states, such as California? Yes, of course one needs to 'cosset' the faithful a bit, but surely the heavy effort needs to go to those places where ensuring just a few more of your sides wavers actually turn out and vote for you.
Yep, in 2016 Hilary spent time in California trying to raise money, and not in the marginal Midwest states as her team “didn’t want people to think they were ‘in play’ but rather safe for her”. There were three or four states that went 51-49 for Trump. In Michigan there were only 11,000 votes betweeen the candidates, out of five million cast. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were less than 1% between them too. A couple of hundred thousand votes in the right places could have made the difference - and still could make the difference in this election too.
Obviously there has to be some balance, but equally obviously the Dem campaign in 2016 got it wrong. Didn't get a lot of Tory campaigning round here, in 'safe' Witham and Braintree, last December, for example.
Braintree was Labour in 1997 and 2001
And what a very good MP Alan Hurst was! Especially when compared, to Brooks Newmark. Significantly constituency boundaries, though.
I campaigned for Brooks in 2001 (pre photos incident) and he did get quite close, lost by 358 votes compared to the 1,451 majority for Hurst in 1997 and finally won the seat in 2005 with a 3,893 majority.
Braintree is safe Tory now though I agree, James Cleverly had a majoroity of 24,673 votes and the seat has gained some Saffron Walden wards in Braintree DC and lost Witham where Priti Patel is now the MP with a 24,082 majority
I really like the tone of that article. The Tories need to engage across a much wider spectrum than independence/Indyref2, they need policies on schools, universities, employment and health. A very long way to go but its a good start.
Interesting he talks about the £2000 Scottish dividend. Isn't that a ~ £200 cost for everyone else in the union
And that black number for the UK is about to fall off the bottom of the chart. When complaining that Scotland gets more than a "fair" share of UK spending it is important to note that, in fact, we all do. That's why we run a deficit.
I think the challenge for Keir Starmer is understanding the compromise between being left wing and being centrist.
I genuinely believe we won't win an election standing on a 2015 manifesto and we obviously can't win standing on a 2019 manifesto. We also didn't win on a 2017 manifesto.
So it's not as simple as be more centrist, or be more left wing. Because both have failed to win Labour elections in recent years.
A large element is surely down to poor choice of leader - but right now we have the most popular Labour leader since Blair and we're still behind. So we need to do more than just change the leader, we need to completely change our approach to the public and the way we present our policies.
I genuinely believe nationalisation of the railways, investment in infrastructure and so on could be sold as pro-Britain and in a patriotic way, we do not need to sacrifice our entire policy platform to be elected (although please get rid of free broadband, thank you).
I don't have the answers and this is why I am not a Labour advisor - I just think those shouting "just be more Blairite" or "just be more Corbynite" don't get it.
I think the challenge for Keir Starmer is understanding the compromise between being left wing and being centrist.
I genuinely believe we won't win an election standing on a 2015 manifesto and we obviously can't win standing on a 2019 manifesto. We also didn't win on a 2017 manifesto.
So it's not as simple as be more centrist, or be more left wing. Because both have failed to win Labour elections in recent years.
A large element is surely down to poor choice of leader - but right now we have the most popular Labour leader since Blair and we're still behind. So we need to do more than just change the leader, we need to completely change our approach to the public and the way we present our policies.
I genuinely believe nationalisation of the railways, investment in infrastructure and so on could be sold as pro-Britain and in a patriotic way, we do not need to sacrifice our entire policy platform to be elected (although please get rid of free broadband, thank you).
I don't have the answers and this is why I am not a Labour advisor - I just think those shouting "just be more Blairite" or "just be more Corbynite" don't get it.
Until you are shut of the likes of corbyn and RLB and the crazy CLP’s like you find in Liverpool labour will never be electable, leaving the tories to do what the hell they like.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
That has always been my thought process. I tend to drink moderately so have no concerns about the next day and I do the same calculation, but would delay driving longer if I have been drinking an unknown quantity of wine at a party.
My only doubts come about when I see these police programmes where someone is stopped with a ridiculous amount of alcohol in their system from the night before. There are three possibilities:
a) they are lying and have been drinking that day b) they should be dead from alcohol poisoning c) the above calculation is wrong
I think the challenge for Keir Starmer is understanding the compromise between being left wing and being centrist.
I genuinely believe we won't win an election standing on a 2015 manifesto and we obviously can't win standing on a 2019 manifesto. We also didn't win on a 2017 manifesto.
So it's not as simple as be more centrist, or be more left wing. Because both have failed to win Labour elections in recent years.
A large element is surely down to poor choice of leader - but right now we have the most popular Labour leader since Blair and we're still behind. So we need to do more than just change the leader, we need to completely change our approach to the public and the way we present our policies.
I genuinely believe nationalisation of the railways, investment in infrastructure and so on could be sold as pro-Britain and in a patriotic way, we do not need to sacrifice our entire policy platform to be elected (although please get rid of free broadband, thank you).
I don't have the answers and this is why I am not a Labour advisor - I just think those shouting "just be more Blairite" or "just be more Corbynite" don't get it.
Until you are shut of the likes of corbyn and RLB and the crazy CLP’s like you find in Liverpool labour will never be electable, leaving the tories to do what the hell they like.
I have remarked before that I think the inevitable conclusion of EHRC is at least some MPs leaving the party.
Of course getting rid of Corbyn is probably worth a couple of points on its own, does Starmer have the bottle?
I think the challenge for Keir Starmer is understanding the compromise between being left wing and being centrist.
I don't have the answers and this is why I am not a Labour advisor - I just think those shouting "just be more Blairite" or "just be more Corbynite" don't get it.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
That has always been my thought process. I tend to drink moderately so have no concerns about the next day and I do the same calculation, but would delay driving longer if I have been drinking an unknown quantity of wine at a party.
My only doubts come about when I see these police programmes where someone is stopped with a ridiculous amount of alcohol in their system from the night before. There are three possibilities:
a) they are lying and have been drinking that day b) they should be dead from alcohol poisoning c) the above calculation is wrong
I tend to believe a), but worry I am wrong.
d) They didn't realise how much they'd drank. Easily done especially if someone introduces shots into the round of drinks. It's very easy to consume eg a few Jagerbombs or Tequilas and forget about them. Or if drinking spirits or wine not realise how much is in the drink.
Could the betting be moved by republican canvassers or their links who are seeing something very different on the ground to what the polls are showing?
We saw that article on here reporting they are confident.
Plus Biden's if you ain;t a democrat you aint black comment. Could there be a 'black wall'; event here similar to the 'red wall' event in the UK, where the black vote is a no show for Biden or even drifts to Trump?
There's certainly a number of black Republicans making themselves heard at the moment - Kim Klacik in Baltimore and Billy Prempeh in New Jersey to give two examples, both standing for Congress.
Reminds me of 2012: forget what the polls are saying, on the ground we’re seeing a surge for Romney. At the time PB featured contributions from ‘Stuart Truth’ who was a prolific poster during the campaign, but mysteriously disappeared the day after the result.
I don't believe it. At 11 they will announce that due to the virus or the price of bread or something, that the election will be postponed until end of the year.
government wanted to give up our base on Cyprus, but the Americans stopped them
I think Heath's dream will be realised soon enough. The Cyprus SBA costs a fucking fortune. Once 903 EAW leave it'll be impossible to justify for 84 squadon's 4 x Bell 412.
I would also add, I don't think we win by becoming more socially conservative either and trying to fight a culture war.
I think Blair was right, he said don't have the culture war at all, we always lose.
The cultural stuff has to be done carefully and slowly if it’s to be accepted - see gay marriage as a good example of how to do it, and the polling that the vast majority now approve - as they realise it gives more rights to people but doesn’t take away from others.
The recent culture war stuff though, is all negative, about hounding people from their jobs because they said the wrong thing on Twitter after a few beers a decade ago, or that men should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms and compete in women’s sport. Labour need to push back hard against it, and be seen to do so. It’s something that only interests a small but vocal mob on Twitter who are all Labour supporters anyway, while 90% of the country think the other way.
As mentioned above, many US Dems are now supporting those calling all white people inherently racist - that could backfire on them quite spectacularly if they’re not careful.
Could the betting be moved by republican canvassers or their links who are seeing something very different on the ground to what the polls are showing?
We saw that article on here reporting they are confident.
Plus Biden's if you ain;t a democrat you aint black comment. Could there be a 'black wall'; event here similar to the 'red wall' event in the UK, where the black vote is a no show for Biden or even drifts to Trump?
There's certainly a number of black Republicans making themselves heard at the moment - Kim Klacik in Baltimore and Billy Prempeh in New Jersey to give two examples, both standing for Congress.
Reminds me of 2012: forget what the polls are saying, on the ground we’re seeing a surge for Romney. At the time PB featured contributions from ‘Stuart Truth’ who was a prolific poster during the campaign, but mysteriously disappeared the day after the result.
Biden is no Obama or Bill Clinton. Then again he's no Hillary Clinton either.
It's the election of the next Next Prime Minister.
Probably not, though possibly the election of the next Deputy Prime Minister if the next election results in a hung Parliament and Starmer needs LD support for a majority
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
Why would anyone want to drink 5 pints, other than to make them forget their own evening and performance at darts / pool / whatever ?
Could the betting be moved by republican canvassers or their links who are seeing something very different on the ground to what the polls are showing?
We saw that article on here reporting they are confident.
Plus Biden's if you ain;t a democrat you aint black comment. Could there be a 'black wall'; event here similar to the 'red wall' event in the UK, where the black vote is a no show for Biden or even drifts to Trump?
There's certainly a number of black Republicans making themselves heard at the moment - Kim Klacik in Baltimore and Billy Prempeh in New Jersey to give two examples, both standing for Congress.
Reminds me of 2012: forget what the polls are saying, on the ground we’re seeing a surge for Romney. At the time PB featured contributions from ‘Stuart Truth’ who was a prolific poster during the campaign, but mysteriously disappeared the day after the result.
Biden is no Obama or Bill Clinton. Then again he's no Hillary Clinton either.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
Why would anyone want to drink 5 pints, other than to make them forget their own evening and performance at darts / pool / whatever ?
Over what time period? 5 pints over 5 hours is not that much. Doing so in an hour or two is.
That's an issue with binge drinking in this country, people cram drinking into a small period. In Australia in the summer it wouldn't be strange to drink in a garden more than that over a day but spread over a full day in the sunshine with a BBQ. Drinking the same quantity in a compressed period of time hits you more.
Why wouldn;t they? There are number of homosexual right wing commentators and campaigners.
Of course there are, but a good number of other issues are drifting in the same manner away from the "social conservatives".
It is an interesting example of how the culture war evolves. Gay marriage was very divisive 10 years ago on PB, but now uncontroversial.
Who wins the votes and who wins the ideas are often quite different things.
Recently a practicising muslim Uber driver was moaning to me his daughter was having to learn about gay people at five.
He wasn't happy.
I get what you mean, religion really is a pox on the world.
Hopefully his daughter won't grow up as bigotted as he has.
I would disagree, religion has many positives, and compatible with many forms of alternative lifestyle, just slower to come round.
The international trends show age as very important as well as religious belief, education and politics. Muslim countries start from a much lower base, but even there the trend is quite strong. Bearing in mind the young median age in most Muslim countries, there is potential for a lot of social liberation.
Could the betting be moved by republican canvassers or their links who are seeing something very different on the ground to what the polls are showing?
We saw that article on here reporting they are confident.
Plus Biden's if you ain;t a democrat you aint black comment. Could there be a 'black wall'; event here similar to the 'red wall' event in the UK, where the black vote is a no show for Biden or even drifts to Trump?
There's certainly a number of black Republicans making themselves heard at the moment - Kim Klacik in Baltimore and Billy Prempeh in New Jersey to give two examples, both standing for Congress.
Reminds me of 2012: forget what the polls are saying, on the ground we’re seeing a surge for Romney. At the time PB featured contributions from ‘Stuart Truth’ who was a prolific poster during the campaign, but mysteriously disappeared the day after the result.
Biden is no Obama or Bill Clinton. Then again he's no Hillary Clinton either.
And Romney/ McCain/ BushSr were no Trump ...
No, the first 2 lost and even if he loses Trump will still have won 1 election like Bush Snr.
Though it is true to say they are all no George W Bush or Reagan
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
Life is so much easier when you are a teetotaller
I am so very tempted. I try not to drink midweek then have a bottle of wine on a Friday and a bottle of wine on a Saturday. In lockdown, I have begun to have a couple of glasses on a Sunday also.
But I feel so much better during the week when I'm not drinking that if in the not too distant future I do give up completely I know it will be a good thing.
Also experimenting with vastly overpriced bottles of water gin substitutes eg Seedlip and recently, Clean Liquor Co (1% abv). Of the alcohol-free beers, Peroni Libera is by far the best and I put a lemonade top (but no umbrella) in one or two of those most nights.
The major downside of being teetotal is having "DESIGNATED DRIVER" tattooed on your forehead.
That - and seeing how tedious really drunk people become.
Yes when I'm not drinking and others are I'm horrified at me usually them.
Comments
It is an interesting example of how the culture war evolves. Gay marriage was very divisive 10 years ago on PB, but now uncontroversial.
Who wins the votes and who wins the ideas are often quite different things.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/1298903479348596736?s=20
Trump's best shot at staying out of jail is to be re-elected. You can't overestimate the motivational power of that.
I would fucking love to see DeeJayTeeJay behind bars. Eric's too stupid do anything - legal or illegal.
He wasn't happy.
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=darth+vader+lego+canteen&&view=detail&mid=0BBB60A0DC02259131610BBB60A0DC0225913161&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=/videos/search?q=darth+vader+lego+canteen&FORM=HDRSC3
But I feel so much better during the week when I'm not drinking that if in the not too distant future I do give up completely I know it will be a good thing.
Also experimenting with vastly overpriced bottles of water gin substitutes eg Seedlip and recently, Clean Liquor Co (1% abv). Of the alcohol-free beers, Peroni Libera is by far the best and I put a lemonade top (but no umbrella) in one or two of those most nights.
No interest in who is the US president? No interest in any political outcome that won't affect your life? I expect you think that is being all grown up and detached and mature. It isn't.
It is palpably not the case that people bet on who they want to win regardless of the odds. Some do but the opposite is common too. Many people are inclined to bet on what they fear or dread coming to pass. Your team losing the final. The politician you despise coming to or retaining power. The emotional hedge, aka overpriced insurance, driven by the irrational pessimism which is as much a part of human nature as blind optimism is, perhaps more so.
As for Donald Trump, his price at 2.16 is much shorter than the probability implied by the polls and election models. Therefore what you say is happening - that most people are assuming he has no chance - is the dead opposite of what is actually happening. What is actually happening is that people are assuming, despite the balance of the current evidence, that he has a great chance.
Gove would presumably keep him on, but would Rishi?
The Conservative and Unionist Party was never afraid to fly the Union Flag.
The Little Englanders currently in charge, not so much...
Blair, on the other hand, was so keen to assimilate and neutralise many traditional tory values that he included in that an essentially jingoistic and symbolic contribution to transatlantic militarism.
The major downside of being teetotal is having "DESIGNATED DRIVER" tattooed on your forehead.
That - and seeing how tedious really drunk people become.
Like, I bet you still think No Deal is a strong favourite, don't you?
It happens if Biden holds the Hillary states and picks up Michigan and Pennsylvania but no more Trump states and Nebraska 02 which Trump won by just 2% in 2016 and which Obama won in 2008 and where the latest polls have Biden ahead
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1298760076908429314?s=20
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/26/politics/cesar-sayoc-white-van-stickers/index.html
Has anyone studied the result if this would have happened?
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1298894540418543616?s=20
In 1983 67% of Labour voters, 61% of Tories and 48% of Alliance voters thought homosexuality was wrong, by 2012 just 35% of Tories, 29% of Labour voters and 22% of LDs saw homosexuality as wrong. There has been a sea change on the issue
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1298889226663194629?s=20
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1298371994459811843?s=20
I've always thought that the shrewd politician throws a little red meat and a few dog whistles at his base, while reaching out to floating voters. The two recent serial election winners, Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, were outstanding at doing that. While Gordon Brown and Theresa May, the two recent failures, were much more politicians of the core vote (and Jeremy Corbyn was the core vote politician par excellence). David Cameron and John Major were somewhere between the two groups.
If you doubt me, here is Robert Blake writing in 1970:
‘This then was Disraeli’s lasting contribution to the Conservative party. He made it the national party...Again and again in the years to come the Conservatives were to try and pin the label of spiritual upon first their Liberal and then their Labour opponents, and if they did not always succeed, they managed to do it often enough to make this one of their most profitable moves in the party game...Nor was it simply a trick or a gimmick. If the Left has so often found itself pilloried as the anti-National party, this is because it has so often contained members who behaved as if they were a friend of every country but their own.’
For more information on how long this has been an issue try Paul Ward, Red Flag and Union Jack: Englishness, Patriotism and the British Left, 1881-1924 (London 2011).
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning.
If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
This goes back, as hinted at in your post, partly to the heritage of Christian Socialism, and even further, to the many waves of radical Dissenters and protestant communitarian groups.
Those are unrelated issues. A lack of consent has nothing to do with gender, equally public exhibitionism.
- the Heath government wanted to give up our base on Cyprus, but the Americans stopped them
- the traitor Prime was only caught by a fluke
- the Russians spied on the Argentinian fleet during the Falklands War with high-level aircraft, and the Norwegians tapped the Russian communications and passed the info onto us
- the Israelis trained the Argentinian military during the conflict.
Oh, yeah, SPOILER ALERTS.
Braintree is safe Tory now though I agree, James Cleverly had a majoroity of 24,673 votes and the seat has gained some Saffron Walden wards in Braintree DC and lost Witham where Priti Patel is now the MP with a 24,082 majority
Hopefully his daughter won't grow up as bigotted as he has.
I genuinely believe we won't win an election standing on a 2015 manifesto and we obviously can't win standing on a 2019 manifesto. We also didn't win on a 2017 manifesto.
So it's not as simple as be more centrist, or be more left wing. Because both have failed to win Labour elections in recent years.
A large element is surely down to poor choice of leader - but right now we have the most popular Labour leader since Blair and we're still behind. So we need to do more than just change the leader, we need to completely change our approach to the public and the way we present our policies.
I genuinely believe nationalisation of the railways, investment in infrastructure and so on could be sold as pro-Britain and in a patriotic way, we do not need to sacrifice our entire policy platform to be elected (although please get rid of free broadband, thank you).
I don't have the answers and this is why I am not a Labour advisor - I just think those shouting "just be more Blairite" or "just be more Corbynite" don't get it.
I think Blair was right, he said don't have the culture war at all, we always lose.
My only doubts come about when I see these police programmes where someone is stopped with a ridiculous amount of alcohol in their system from the night before. There are three possibilities:
a) they are lying and have been drinking that day
b) they should be dead from alcohol poisoning
c) the above calculation is wrong
I tend to believe a), but worry I am wrong.
The tension is unbearable
Of course getting rid of Corbyn is probably worth a couple of points on its own, does Starmer have the bottle?
The recent culture war stuff though, is all negative, about hounding people from their jobs because they said the wrong thing on Twitter after a few beers a decade ago, or that men should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms and compete in women’s sport. Labour need to push back hard against it, and be seen to do so. It’s something that only interests a small but vocal mob on Twitter who are all Labour supporters anyway, while 90% of the country think the other way.
As mentioned above, many US Dems are now supporting those calling all white people inherently racist - that could backfire on them quite spectacularly if they’re not careful.
Edit: ah, covering all bases, I see.
That's an issue with binge drinking in this country, people cram drinking into a small period. In Australia in the summer it wouldn't be strange to drink in a garden more than that over a day but spread over a full day in the sunshine with a BBQ. Drinking the same quantity in a compressed period of time hits you more.
The international trends show age as very important as well as religious belief, education and politics. Muslim countries start from a much lower base, but even there the trend is quite strong. Bearing in mind the young median age in most Muslim countries, there is potential for a lot of social liberation.
Though it is true to say they are all no George W Bush or Reagan
me usuallythem.