So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
No party has clean hands on anti-semitism. Who can forget Jenny Tonge? And some Tory candidates had, to say the least, appalling views - Ryan Houghton and Sally Ann Hart (the latter still a Tory MP, of course).
What was different - and very alarming - about Corbyn was the way he not only did not confront it but positively enabled it.
That said, this is an awful blunder by the Lib Dems and Davey should suspend her as candidate at once.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
Wow. Look at those youngsters. They are hot to trot.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Not really. In the Brexit referendum young people were the most risk averse and in favour of the status quo. It was the elderly who voted for change.
I think the Scottish situation is probably the more healthy of the two. The young will be more impacted by radical change so it's better if they are the ones driving it.
Brexit is complicated by the factor that the EU becoming a nation state if we remained in it is a radical option.
Just say "Good point, Kinabalu, I hadn't thought of it that way."
Won't kill you.
I look forward to the day you make a good point enabling me to say that.
Perhaps I can make it easier by flagging all the posts I do that do NOT make a good point with an asterisk at the bottom. So if you don't see an asterisk at the bottom it means there's at least one good point in there somewhere.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
Minnesota has not voted Republican since 1972, even Reagan did not win Minnesota, that is why. Along with Massachussetts, which Reagan did win but which was the only state to vote for McGovern in 1972 and has not voted Republican since 1984 for President, it should be as close to a Democrat safe state as you can get.
I would say New Hampshire which voted for Bush in 2000 or Nevada, which voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and where Biden now has a smaller poll lead than Minnesota are more likely Trump pickups if he gains any states
NH wouldn't surprise me at all - lot of farms, much more rural than many imagine.
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
We appear to have gone from the worst midfield in the league to one of the best in a couple of weeks.
Only the top two have a better first choice front 6. Digne and Coleman fine too, you need a world class CB and a top half keeper to have a fair chance of CL if lucky with injuries.
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
hasn't gone sour for the bookies. 6/4 best price for Trump to win Minnesota.
There are clearly some people out there who are sceptical about the polls
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
The LDs havent selected a candidate for mayor as you probably know. She is in the run off and that isnt acceptable, she should be removed without delay.
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
Btw, any news on the Tory Islamophobia inquiry?
There isn’t going to be an external inquiry, and Covid is being used as an excuse to drop the internal one.
Conceding the Presidency and trying to save the Senate?
It was not the Republican Party who won the Presidency in 2016 anyway, the GOP establishment hated him and a few even voted for Hillary.
It was the Trump brand which won the 2016 election, much as it was the Boris brand rather than the Tories which won a majority at the UK 2019 election really, particularly through Trump Democrats who did not bother to vote in 2012 or voted for Obama over Romney but switched to Trump in 2016 in the Midwest swing states and the rustbelt.
The GOP will focus on Congress as they did in 2016
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
Btw, any news on the Tory Islamophobia inquiry?
I think they found that any Islamophobia was always in a limited and specific way. If the party finds Islamophobia that they deem unacceptable then of course they will take action.
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
But it was while she was campaigning as a Conservative candidate that she made these comments, and they didn't result in her deselection. It's hard to see how they didn't come to light at the time, given that she was shouting them through a megaphone! Presumably anti-Semitism was acceptable to the Tories in those days. As far as I can tell, she's not expressed any such views since them, only while she was a member of the Conservative party.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
I'm still mystified why they chose a racist alcoholic to play a Scotsman as the lead in that film?
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
The LDs havent selected a candidate for mayor as you probably know. She is in the run off and that isnt acceptable, she should be removed without delay.
How the hell was she even shortlisted?
Yes, Straw ran a nasty campaign against her, very New Labour fashion, but that does not excuse racism.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Conceding the Presidency and trying to save the Senate?
It was not the Republican Party who won the Presidency in 2016 anyway, the GOP establishment hated him and a few even voted for Hillary.
It was the Trump brand which won the 2016 election, much as it was the Boris brand rather than the Tories which won a majority at the UK 2019 election really, particularly through Trump Democrats who did not bother to vote in 2012 or voted for Obama over Romney but switched to Trump in 2016 in the Midwest swing states and the rustbelt.
The GOP will focus on Congress as they did in 2016
From that article the key difference from 2016 is that plenty of donors are giving only to the Senate races and not Trump.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
The LDs havent selected a candidate for mayor as you probably know. She is in the run off and that isnt acceptable, she should be removed without delay.
How the hell was she even shortlisted?
Yes, Straw ran a nasty campaign against her, very New Labour fashion, but that does not excuse racism.
Presumably she kept stumm about her anti-Semitic Conservative campaign 23 years ago? I'm sure she will be removed now that this has come to light though.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There was far too much wooly thinking there.
I mean The Seventh Earl of Cardigan commanding during the Battle of Balaclava.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
But it was while she was campaigning as a Conservative candidate that she made these comments, and they didn't result in her deselection. It's hard to see how they didn't come to light at the time, given that she was shouting them through a megaphone! Presumably anti-Semitism was acceptable to the Tories in those days. As far as I can tell, she's not expressed any such views since them, only while she was a member of the Conservative party.
She did it apparently as the Labour campaign was going round saying she was not a Muslim.
However that is still unacceptable and regardless once they came to light she was removed from the Tory candidates list and has not stood for the Tories again but is now being allowed to run as a potential candidate for the LDs it seems
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
Cor, bringing up a film made 25 years ago by an Australian-American, that's some biting commentary on the Scottish zeitgeist. You'll be c&p-ing Effie Deans tweets afore ye know it.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There is no such thing as an historically accurate movie. Film requires far too many concessions to literary devices such as plot and narrative and main characters. Film has to be highly selective about which moments it will include and which it will exclude, because to include them all would be too boring to viewers. I was at a dinner with some military history bores that degenerated into an argument about whether Lawrence of Arabia was a war movie. Lawrence of Arabia is a good film because it tells the compelling narrative of an individual. “Accurate” war movies are as boring as hell because, interspersed with moments of sheer terror, war is actually all about moving men and material from point a to point b. You may as well make a movie about a logistics company. That’s why “A Bridge too Far” and “Battle of Britain” are not very good films.
Why does the headline not reflect the actual article?
James Webber, a partner at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said: “It’s a concession of sorts by the UK, but if this is where the negotiations end up, it will be much closer to the UK’s view of the world than the EU’s".
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
Except for U-571?
Even worse than that.
Even worse than the Battle of the Bulge?
Yes, much worse. I mean Isabella of France would have been three when the film alleges William Wallace knocked her up.
So, the great Scottish hero is a paedo.
There's so many other inaccuracies I could list but I already have several full time jobs already.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There is no such thing as an historically accurate movie. Film requires far too many concessions to literary devices such as plot and narrative and main characters. Film has to be highly selective about which moments it will include and which it will exclude, because to include them all would be too boring to viewers. I was at a dinner with some military history bores that degenerated into an argument about whether Lawrence of Arabia was a war movie. Lawrence of Arabia is a good film because it tells the compelling narrative of an individual. “Accurate” war movies are as boring as hell because, interspersed with moments of sheer terror, war is actually all about moving men and material from point a to point b. You may as well make a movie about a logistics company. That’s why “A Bridge too Far” and “Battle of Britain” are not very good films.
I would have an honourable shoutout to The Cruel Sea as a fairly accurate historical movie, albeit one that’s officially fiction.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've always felt that revolutions happen because of some combination of:
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance? and (2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
The rich voted Remain but both the middle and the poor voted Leave, though in the last 2 general elections the Tories have done better with the middle than the rich and the poor.
Similarly in 2016 Trump did better with the middle than the rich and Hillary won the poor
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
Except for U-571?
Even worse than that.
Even worse than the Battle of the Bulge?
Yes, much worse. I mean Isabella of France would have been three when the film alleges William Wallace knocked her up.
So, the great Scottish hero is a paedo.
There's so many other inaccuracies I could list but I already have several full time jobs already.
How many years had William Wallace been dead by the time Edward III was born in 1312?
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There is no such thing as an historically accurate movie. Film requires far too many concessions to literary devices such as plot and narrative and main characters. Film has to be highly selective about which moments it will include and which it will exclude, because to include them all would be too boring to viewers. I was at a dinner with some military history bores that degenerated into an argument about whether Lawrence of Arabia was a war movie. Lawrence of Arabia is a good film because it tells the compelling narrative of an individual. “Accurate” war movies are as boring as hell because, interspersed with moments of sheer terror, war is actually all about moving men and material from point a to point b. You may as well make a movie about a logistics company. That’s why “A Bridge too Far” and “Battle of Britain” are not very good films.
I would have an honourable shoutout to The Cruel Sea as a fairly accurate historical movie, albeit one that’s officially fiction.
The best war movies pick a character (or a small group of characters) and follow them through a traditional story arc. Dambusters is decent as a result. A Bridge too Far a sprawling mess.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
Except for U-571?
Even worse than that.
Even worse than the Battle of the Bulge?
Yes, much worse. I mean Isabella of France would have been three when the film alleges William Wallace knocked her up.
So, the great Scottish hero is a paedo.
There's so many other inaccuracies I could list but I already have several full time jobs already.
How many years had William Wallace been dead by the time Edward III was born in 1312?
For Edward I I know it was five.
He'd have been dead seven years by the time of the birth of Edward III.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There was far too much wooly thinking there.
I mean The Seventh Earl of Cardigan commanding during the Battle of Balaclava.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've always felt that revolutions happen because of some combination of:
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance? and (2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
The rich voted Remain but both the middle and the poor voted Leave, though in the last 2 general elections the Tories have done better with the middle than the rich and the poor.
Similarly in 2016 Trump did better with the middle than the rich and Hillary won the poor
What's Trump got to do with anything?
He represents as does Boris a shift in the support of both the conservative parties in the US and UK from the rich to middle income voters.
In 2012 and 2015 Romney and Cameron did best with the highest earning voters, by 2016 and 2019 Trump and Boris did best with middle income voters
In the humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (2007), author John O'Farrell claims that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a Plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to "William Wallace and Gromit".
One thing interesting in the Scottish covid stats is the proportion of positive tests now up at 3.7% today and that number has been increasingly quite steadily for the last couple of weeks.
Given they made a big deal of the 5% WHO threshold when the proportion was down in the 0.1-0.2% range, I imagine once it goes back over 5% they will feel some pressure to move to the next level of restrictions, whatever that will be (given I doubt the rule of 6 stuff kicking in now will be enough to stop that number from being breached relatively soon at current rate of increase).
So she was actually standing as the Conservative candidate when she was urging people not to vote for a Jew. And was OK with the Tories at the time?
She was never allowed to stand for the Tories again after those revelations came to light, however she has worked for the Peoples' Vote campaign since with Labour, the LDs and SNP and the Greens and is now it seems the LD candidate for London Mayor
She isn’t the candidate - yet another HY factual error. She is the outsider in a two-way runoff, and this news of what she got up to during her Tory days now decides the contest.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Are you phrasing it in that way to rule out the opposite? Abortion seems the most likely to reverse simply because it is a fundamental conflict of rights.
No, that way - unacceptable to acceptable to unacceptable again - is just as interesting to consider.
Abortion? Well, a big slice of the USA would like to see that happen. Not seeing it myself though. Women will not tolerate such a diminution in status.
Perhaps a bit late to suggest it as it has already happened, but one of the bellwethers of Brexit-related cultural clashes to me was when an English friend in Devon commented to me about 2009-11 about the way in which racialist chatter had suddenly become more acceptable in the local yacht/golf/etc clubs - middle class circles. He was evidently quite struck by it.
Places like Devon and Cornwall are very nice to spend a couple of weeks in during August, but anecdotes like this are why I'd never live there. Just can't be bothered with this kind of shit.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've always felt that revolutions happen because of some combination of:
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance? and (2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
The rich voted Remain but both the middle and the poor voted Leave, though in the last 2 general elections the Tories have done better with the middle than the rich and the poor.
Similarly in 2016 Trump did better with the middle than the rich and Hillary won the poor
What's Trump got to do with anything?
He represents as does Boris a shift in the support of both the conservative parties in the US and UK from the rich to middle income voters.
In 2012 and 2015 Romney and Cameron did best with the highest earning voters, by 2016 and 2019 Trump and Boris did best with middle income voters
I was talking about revolutions. Trump is just a populist leader. And he's barely even done anything from a policy perspective, let alone ushered in some kind of revolution.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There is no such thing as an historically accurate movie. Film requires far too many concessions to literary devices such as plot and narrative and main characters. Film has to be highly selective about which moments it will include and which it will exclude, because to include them all would be too boring to viewers. I was at a dinner with some military history bores that degenerated into an argument about whether Lawrence of Arabia was a war movie. Lawrence of Arabia is a good film because it tells the compelling narrative of an individual. “Accurate” war movies are as boring as hell because, interspersed with moments of sheer terror, war is actually all about moving men and material from point a to point b. You may as well make a movie about a logistics company. That’s why “A Bridge too Far” and “Battle of Britain” are not very good films.
The examples you give at the end contradict your opening. But you are right the films that endeavour to stick close to the history aren’t as engaging. Other examples would be Tora Tora Tora and The Longest Day.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've always felt that revolutions happen because of some combination of:
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance? and (2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
The rich voted Remain but both the middle and the poor voted Leave, though in the last 2 general elections the Tories have done better with the middle than the rich and the poor.
Similarly in 2016 Trump did better with the middle than the rich and Hillary won the poor
What's Trump got to do with anything?
He represents as does Boris a shift in the support of both the conservative parties in the US and UK from the rich to middle income voters.
In 2012 and 2015 Romney and Cameron did best with the highest earning voters, by 2016 and 2019 Trump and Boris did best with middle income voters
I was talking about revolutions. Trump is just a populist leader. And he's barely even done anything from a policy perspective, let alone ushered in some kind of revolution.
He has shifted the GOP from being a pro free trade party committed to limited government and promoting democracy abroad back to being a protectionist party committed to tariffs on foreign imports and reducing immigration and a nationalist agenda.
If we go to No Deal Brexit so will Boris have done the same to the Tories
Incidentally, if people want really wildly inaccurate historical goggle stuff, anything by Philippa Gregory will qualify but The White Queen deserves a truly special mention.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
I'm still mystified why they chose a racist alcoholic to play a Scotsman as the lead in that film?
It was a hoot and Mel played the part well, it was for American audience and was never meant to be realistic. Great film. You have to be very stupid to bring it up, only rabid demented Tories like Carlotta like to pretend it was the SNP that produced it rather than money makers in LA.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
hasn't gone sour for the bookies. 6/4 best price for Trump to win Minnesota.
There are clearly some people out there who are sceptical about the polls
There are lots of reasons to be sceptical of the polls.
However, I am also old enough to remember back in 2012, when there was a poster on this site called @StuartTruth, who would forensically take apart every poll and show that Obama was overstated.
It turned out - slightly ironically - that the pollsters had got it wrong. Indeed, the pollsters were more wrong in 2012 than in any of the other elections since 1980 (much more wrong that 2016), and Obama was understated.
Since 1980, at the national level, the poll of polls got within 1.5% of the correct lead in all but one occasion, 2012. Even then, the gap wasn't massive, being just under 3%.
Now, it's possible that Trump is understated by more than 3%. I can certainly give you plausible reasons why that might be the case. (Biden supporters unenthused, concern about CV19 affecting voting patters among Trump opponents, underestimating turnout of High School educated voters.)
But I can also give you plausible reasons why they might be the wrong the other way. (Women make up 55% of Presidential voters, and Biden leads by 15 points with them. Mail in voters are more likely not to forget relative to on the day voters. Plus, there is a long history in the UK and the US of pollsters over-correcting each time.)
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There is no such thing as an historically accurate movie. Film requires far too many concessions to literary devices such as plot and narrative and main characters. Film has to be highly selective about which moments it will include and which it will exclude, because to include them all would be too boring to viewers. I was at a dinner with some military history bores that degenerated into an argument about whether Lawrence of Arabia was a war movie. Lawrence of Arabia is a good film because it tells the compelling narrative of an individual. “Accurate” war movies are as boring as hell because, interspersed with moments of sheer terror, war is actually all about moving men and material from point a to point b. You may as well make a movie about a logistics company. That’s why “A Bridge too Far” and “Battle of Britain” are not very good films.
The examples you give at the end contradict your opening. But you are right the films that endeavour to stick close to the history aren’t as engaging. Other examples would be Tora Tora Tora and The Longest Day.
People of limited imagination cannot understand that these are just feelgood films to make money. In their bland unimaginative minds they cannot understand poetic licence. When you are watching films you want them to be exciting , funny , tragic , gory etc, it is escapism.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
hasn't gone sour for the bookies. 6/4 best price for Trump to win Minnesota.
There are clearly some people out there who are sceptical about the polls
There are lots of reasons to be sceptical of the polls.
However, I am also old enough to remember back in 2012, when there was a poster on this site called @StuartTruth, who would forensically take apart every poll and show that Obama was overstated.
It turned out - slightly ironically - that the pollsters had got it wrong. Indeed, the pollsters were more wrong in 2012 than in any of the other elections since 1980 (much more wrong that 2016), and Obama was understated.
Since 1980, at the national level, the poll of polls got within 1.5% of the correct lead in all but one occasion, 2012. Even then, the gap wasn't massive, being just under 3%.
Now, it's possible that Trump is understated by more than 3%. I can certainly give you plausible reasons why that might be the case. (Biden supporters unenthused, concern about CV19 affecting voting patters among Trump opponents, underestimating turnout of High School educated voters.)
But I can also give you plausible reasons why they might be the wrong the other way. (Women make up 55% of Presidential voters, and Biden leads by 15 points with them. Mail in voters are more likely not to forget relative to on the day voters. Plus, there is a long history in the UK and the US of pollsters over-correcting each time.)
Austria: "What we are experiencing at the moment is the beginning of the second wave. The contagion figures are increasing every day," said Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. at a press conference in Vienna. "Two weeks ago there were about 350 new cases a day; yesterday there were more than 850. The situation is particularly dramatic in Vienna, where 50% of all new infections were recorded in Austria," Kurz said. Along with other members of the Government, he has asked for "responsibility" to prevent a loss of control of contagions from being reached, which forces to decree a general confinement like the one practiced in March. This Monday the restrictions that had been lifted come into force, such as the obligation to use masks in all closed public spaces. Eating or drinking standing up, or in the bar is prohibited in restaurants, and customers are only allowed to remove their mask when seated at a table. With exceptions that require special permission, any show without custom-assigned seats is prohibited, while reducing the maximum number of attendees, up to 50 if it is indoors, and 100 when it is held outdoors.
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've always felt that revolutions happen because of some combination of:
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance? and (2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
The rich voted Remain but both the middle and the poor voted Leave, though in the last 2 general elections the Tories have done better with the middle than the rich and the poor.
Similarly in 2016 Trump did better with the middle than the rich and Hillary won the poor
What's Trump got to do with anything?
He represents as does Boris a shift in the support of both the conservative parties in the US and UK from the rich to middle income voters.
In 2012 and 2015 Romney and Cameron did best with the highest earning voters, by 2016 and 2019 Trump and Boris did best with middle income voters
I was talking about revolutions. Trump is just a populist leader. And he's barely even done anything from a policy perspective, let alone ushered in some kind of revolution.
He has shifted the GOP from being a pro free trade party committed to limited government and promoting democracy abroad back to being a protectionist party committed to tariffs on foreign imports and reducing immigration and a nationalist agenda.
If we go to No Deal Brexit so will Boris have done the same to the Tories
The Republican Party has run on a reducing immigration platform since at least Bush Sr, so that's not revolutionary.
Regarding protectionism, that may be correct. But he also signed the largest free trade deal in the US's history, and has quietly withdrawn almost all the extra tariffs on China.
Indeed, I suspect that the average tariff paid by the US consumer is lower now than when Obama became President.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
hasn't gone sour for the bookies. 6/4 best price for Trump to win Minnesota.
There are clearly some people out there who are sceptical about the polls
There are lots of reasons to be sceptical of the polls.
However, I am also old enough to remember back in 2012, when there was a poster on this site called @StuartTruth, who would forensically take apart every poll and show that Obama was overstated.
It turned out - slightly ironically - that the pollsters had got it wrong. Indeed, the pollsters were more wrong in 2012 than in any of the other elections since 1980 (much more wrong that 2016), and Obama was understated.
Since 1980, at the national level, the poll of polls got within 1.5% of the correct lead in all but one occasion, 2012. Even then, the gap wasn't massive, being just under 3%.
Now, it's possible that Trump is understated by more than 3%. I can certainly give you plausible reasons why that might be the case. (Biden supporters unenthused, concern about CV19 affecting voting patters among Trump opponents, underestimating turnout of High School educated voters.)
But I can also give you plausible reasons why they might be the wrong the other way. (Women make up 55% of Presidential voters, and Biden leads by 15 points with them. Mail in voters are more likely not to forget relative to on the day voters. Plus, there is a long history in the UK and the US of pollsters over-correcting each time.)
If you were looking at white voters alone in 2012 the pollsters were correct, Romney in 2012 won a higher voteshare of the white vote of any candidate Democrat or Republican before or since since Bush Snr in 1988 got 60% of the white vote. Romney got 59% of the white vote, higher even than the 58% of the white vote Trump got in 2016.
The only reason Obama was re elected in 2012 was because he got 93% of the black vote and a huge black turnout compared to the just 88% of the black vote Hillary got.
Will Biden match Obama's black voteshare and turnout even with Harris on the ticket? Unlikely
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
hasn't gone sour for the bookies. 6/4 best price for Trump to win Minnesota.
There are clearly some people out there who are sceptical about the polls
There are lots of reasons to be sceptical of the polls.
However, I am also old enough to remember back in 2012, when there was a poster on this site called @StuartTruth, who would forensically take apart every poll and show that Obama was overstated.
It turned out - slightly ironically - that the pollsters had got it wrong. Indeed, the pollsters were more wrong in 2012 than in any of the other elections since 1980 (much more wrong that 2016), and Obama was understated.
Since 1980, at the national level, the poll of polls got within 1.5% of the correct lead in all but one occasion, 2012. Even then, the gap wasn't massive, being just under 3%.
Now, it's possible that Trump is understated by more than 3%. I can certainly give you plausible reasons why that might be the case. (Biden supporters unenthused, concern about CV19 affecting voting patters among Trump opponents, underestimating turnout of High School educated voters.)
But I can also give you plausible reasons why they might be the wrong the other way. (Women make up 55% of Presidential voters, and Biden leads by 15 points with them. Mail in voters are more likely not to forget relative to on the day voters. Plus, there is a long history in the UK and the US of pollsters over-correcting each time.)
Stuart Truth was a hoot. I don't think anyone took him seriously. PB is all the richer for characters like that. Legends.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
hasn't gone sour for the bookies. 6/4 best price for Trump to win Minnesota.
There are clearly some people out there who are sceptical about the polls
There are lots of reasons to be sceptical of the polls.
However, I am also old enough to remember back in 2012, when there was a poster on this site called @StuartTruth, who would forensically take apart every poll and show that Obama was overstated.
It turned out - slightly ironically - that the pollsters had got it wrong. Indeed, the pollsters were more wrong in 2012 than in any of the other elections since 1980 (much more wrong that 2016), and Obama was understated.
Since 1980, at the national level, the poll of polls got within 1.5% of the correct lead in all but one occasion, 2012. Even then, the gap wasn't massive, being just under 3%.
Now, it's possible that Trump is understated by more than 3%. I can certainly give you plausible reasons why that might be the case. (Biden supporters unenthused, concern about CV19 affecting voting patters among Trump opponents, underestimating turnout of High School educated voters.)
But I can also give you plausible reasons why they might be the wrong the other way. (Women make up 55% of Presidential voters, and Biden leads by 15 points with them. Mail in voters are more likely not to forget relative to on the day voters. Plus, there is a long history in the UK and the US of pollsters over-correcting each time.)
Did people get a sense of what Stuart Truth's motivation was for taking such time and trouble to argue that Obama - America's first black president - would be kicked out after one term?
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range, Tick Tock.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That's just bog standard the old being more conservative is it not?
It shows it will not be long before the inevitable happens, it shows the old as being more brainwashed beyond help than younger people. Given the rate they will be popping their clogs versus the younger people it is a racing certainty.
As much as I want you to get independence, it shows no such thing. If people didn't change their minds as they get older the Tories would have died centuries ago and the UK would be to the left of the USSR.
20 years ago when the Tories were getting hammered by New Labour we were getting told that the Tories had a bigger problem in that their voters were old and would die off while Labour's vote was young so Labour would be winning forever essentially. Many of those who were voting Tory 20 years ago have died off . . . but more of those who were voting Labour then now vote Tory to more than compensate.
Don't rely upon demographics doing the hard work. Take nothing for granted, you need to win this by putting the graft in because these voters will get more conservative and turn towards No as they age and get closer to being pensioners themselves.
I've always felt that revolutions happen because of some combination of:
(1) things are going really well, we can afford to take a chance? and (2) things are going really poorly, how could things possibly be worse?
That's why you have a combination of the rich (we can afford Scottish Independence!) and the poor (it's hardly going to be worse) against the worried middle (what if I lose my savings...)
I think this model was also the case with Brexit, where the winners and the losers from globalisation ended up in alliance. One group felt the EU was holding back globalisation and free trade, the other felt the EU was holding back protectionism.
Revolutions usually end up eating one of those two groups.
The rich voted Remain but both the middle and the poor voted Leave, though in the last 2 general elections the Tories have done better with the middle than the rich and the poor.
Similarly in 2016 Trump did better with the middle than the rich and Hillary won the poor
What's Trump got to do with anything?
He represents as does Boris a shift in the support of both the conservative parties in the US and UK from the rich to middle income voters.
In 2012 and 2015 Romney and Cameron did best with the highest earning voters, by 2016 and 2019 Trump and Boris did best with middle income voters
I was talking about revolutions. Trump is just a populist leader. And he's barely even done anything from a policy perspective, let alone ushered in some kind of revolution.
He has shifted the GOP from being a pro free trade party committed to limited government and promoting democracy abroad back to being a protectionist party committed to tariffs on foreign imports and reducing immigration and a nationalist agenda.
If we go to No Deal Brexit so will Boris have done the same to the Tories
The Republican Party has run on a reducing immigration platform since at least Bush Sr, so that's not revolutionary.
Regarding protectionism, that may be correct. But he also signed the largest free trade deal in the US's history, and has quietly withdrawn almost all the extra tariffs on China.
Indeed, I suspect that the average tariff paid by the US consumer is lower now than when Obama became President.
McCain ran on a path to citizenship, Bush W made an effort to reach out to Hispanics and got 44% of Hispanic votes in 2004, only Trump ran on building a wall with Mexico.
If Trump is re elected there will be tariffs on EU imports most likely and as you say some of the extra tariffs he levied on China remain
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
I'm still mystified why they chose a racist alcoholic to play a Scotsman as the lead in that film?
It was a hoot and Mel played the part well, it was for American audience and was never meant to be realistic. Great film. You have to be very stupid to bring it up, only rabid demented Tories like Carlotta like to pretend it was the SNP that produced it rather than money makers in LA.
From the Patriot to Braveheart to Gallipolli Gibson hates the English even more than the SNP. Mind you he is no fan of Jews either as The Passion of The Christ showed
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There is no such thing as an historically accurate movie. Film requires far too many concessions to literary devices such as plot and narrative and main characters. Film has to be highly selective about which moments it will include and which it will exclude, because to include them all would be too boring to viewers. I was at a dinner with some military history bores that degenerated into an argument about whether Lawrence of Arabia was a war movie. Lawrence of Arabia is a good film because it tells the compelling narrative of an individual. “Accurate” war movies are as boring as hell because, interspersed with moments of sheer terror, war is actually all about moving men and material from point a to point b. You may as well make a movie about a logistics company. That’s why “A Bridge too Far” and “Battle of Britain” are not very good films.
The examples you give at the end contradict your opening. But you are right the films that endeavour to stick close to the history aren’t as engaging. Other examples would be Tora Tora Tora and The Longest Day.
It is quite possible to create an interesting film, without setting the real story off fire and throwing it down a well.
Midway is a recent example - plenty of "movie bits", but most of the story happened *something like* that.
Couple more polls reported on RCP. (Apologies if already posted.)
Arizona - Biden up 3 and up 9 in Minnesota. Both with YouGov.
I'd say the Arizona score is middling to good for Trump in the light of other polls. Minnesota is looking very bad though. This is bang in line with other polls. I'm not sure it counts as a swing state any more. Anybody any ideas why it's gone so sour for the President?
hasn't gone sour for the bookies. 6/4 best price for Trump to win Minnesota.
There are clearly some people out there who are sceptical about the polls
There are lots of reasons to be sceptical of the polls.
However, I am also old enough to remember back in 2012, when there was a poster on this site called @StuartTruth, who would forensically take apart every poll and show that Obama was overstated.
It turned out - slightly ironically - that the pollsters had got it wrong. Indeed, the pollsters were more wrong in 2012 than in any of the other elections since 1980 (much more wrong that 2016), and Obama was understated.
Since 1980, at the national level, the poll of polls got within 1.5% of the correct lead in all but one occasion, 2012. Even then, the gap wasn't massive, being just under 3%.
Now, it's possible that Trump is understated by more than 3%. I can certainly give you plausible reasons why that might be the case. (Biden supporters unenthused, concern about CV19 affecting voting patters among Trump opponents, underestimating turnout of High School educated voters.)
But I can also give you plausible reasons why they might be the wrong the other way. (Women make up 55% of Presidential voters, and Biden leads by 15 points with them. Mail in voters are more likely not to forget relative to on the day voters. Plus, there is a long history in the UK and the US of pollsters over-correcting each time.)
There is also the phenomenon of the Trafalgar Group. They deservedly get credit for being one of the only pollsters who called PA correctly in 2016. They ascribe this to the Shy Trump voter so they top up Trump in all of their polls, with the result that they give him much better state polling in swing states than anyone else. I believe others do the same to a greater or lesser extent. However the reason that Trump won in the rust belt states, when polls pointed the other way, was that previously undecided voters overwhelmingly went for him over Clinton. He’s not an unknown entity anymore, there are fewer undecideds, and there is no real evidence of a Shy Trump voter, nor could there be because polling the question asking, essentially, “were you truthful in your previous answers”. So it’s quite possible Biden is being understated.
Conversely, though, I have to admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so Shy Trumpers may be a thing. It’s just that in my experience Trumpers are anything but “shy”.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
I'm still mystified why they chose a racist alcoholic to play a Scotsman as the lead in that film?
It was a hoot and Mel played the part well, it was for American audience and was never meant to be realistic. Great film. You have to be very stupid to bring it up, only rabid demented Tories like Carlotta like to pretend it was the SNP that produced it rather than money makers in LA.
From the Patriot to Braveheart to Gallipolli Gibson hates the English even more than the SNP. Mind you he is no fan of Jews either as The Passion of The Christ showed
Relentless disapproval doesn't fly. Or at least it doesn't in a nationalist sense. The Scots. the Indians, the Aussies - all quite like the English for example. Serious and longstanding gripes not withstanding.
I have no idea what it is about religions that makes Jewish people an exception to this. I think they may be just hated for getting the world right.
Second wave, time to close the pubs and prepare for Lockdown 2.0
Not the right solution, secure the care homes, shut the pubs and bars at 11, enforce no standing drinking and other distancing rules, advise the vulnerable. Police it with advice and understanding then come down hard on repeat offenders. Stop forcing people back to the office, split the Health secs job, covid minister/ health minister to get hospitals moving and have proper focus on defeating and controlling the virus. Solve the end of transition but don’t distract the from the key battle of covid. Some of this is happening in Spain but not enough, response spread over too many autonomous communities, but it’s a pan European problem within a global problem, I see no effort to coordinate response.
Because that's an agreed deal and not a negotiating position. Penultimate paragraph is the relevant one.
James Webber, a partner at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said: “It’s a concession of sorts by the UK, but if this is where the negotiations end up, it will be much closer to the UK’s view of the world than the EU’s.”
Yes, for Trump to win Trafalgar have to be right and pretty much everyone else wrong. Even then it's a close call. On the other hand, if Trafalgar are wrong, it's a blow-out.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
Cor, bringing up a film made 25 years ago by an Australian-American, that's some biting commentary on the Scottish zeitgeist. You'll be c&p-ing Effie Deans tweets afore ye know it.
Her recent efforts on the translation of Skye on roadsigns mentally broke me.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
I'm still mystified why they chose a racist alcoholic to play a Scotsman as the lead in that film?
It was a hoot and Mel played the part well, it was for American audience and was never meant to be realistic. Great film. You have to be very stupid to bring it up, only rabid demented Tories like Carlotta like to pretend it was the SNP that produced it rather than money makers in LA.
From the Patriot to Braveheart to Gallipolli Gibson hates the English even more than the SNP. Mind you he is no fan of Jews either as The Passion of The Christ showed
Relentless disapproval doesn't fly. Or at least it doesn't in a nationalist sense. The Scots. the Indians, the Aussies - all quite like the English for example. Serious and longstanding gripes not withstanding.
I have no idea what it is about religions that makes Jewish people an exception to this. I think they may be just hated for getting the world right.
I’m not quite sure what you’ve been smoking to make the striking assertion that the Australians and, especially, the Scots “quite like” the English. I found India very welcoming though.
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
Cor, bringing up a film made 25 years ago by an Australian-American, that's some biting commentary on the Scottish zeitgeist. You'll be c&p-ing Effie Deans tweets afore ye know it.
Her recent efforts on the translation of Skye on roadsigns mentally broke me.
Comments
What was different - and very alarming - about Corbyn was the way he not only did not confront it but positively enabled it.
That said, this is an awful blunder by the Lib Dems and Davey should suspend her as candidate at once.
*
There are clearly some people out there who are sceptical about the polls
https://www.independent.co.uk/us-election-2020/bernie-sanders-biden-trump-2020-election-aoc-polls-b433909.html
Like this guy.....
It was the Trump brand which won the 2016 election, much as it was the Boris brand rather than the Tories which won a majority at the UK 2019 election really, particularly through Trump Democrats who did not bother to vote in 2012 or voted for Obama over Romney but switched to Trump in 2016 in the Midwest swing states and the rustbelt.
The GOP will focus on Congress as they did in 2016
I'm still mystified why they chose a racist alcoholic to play a Scotsman as the lead in that film?
Yes, Straw ran a nasty campaign against her, very New Labour fashion, but that does not excuse racism.
In 2016 they donate to both.
I mean The Seventh Earl of Cardigan commanding during the Battle of Balaclava.
However that is still unacceptable and regardless once they came to light she was removed from the Tory candidates list and has not stood for the Tories again but is now being allowed to run as a potential candidate for the LDs it seems
LOVE NON-LEAGUE
@Love_non_league
·
23m
FULL-TIME OPPORTUNITY!
WINGER REQUIRED
James Webber, a partner at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said: “It’s a concession of sorts by the UK, but if this is where the negotiations end up, it will be much closer to the UK’s view of the world than the EU’s".
So, the great Scottish hero is a paedo.
There's so many other inaccuracies I could list but I already have several full time jobs already.
For Edward I I know it was five.
Oddly in another Mel Gibson directed film, The Passion of The Christ, there were similar homophobic undertones with the portrayal of Herod.
In 2012 and 2015 Romney and Cameron did best with the highest earning voters, by 2016 and 2019 Trump and Boris did best with middle income voters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/12/students-call-george-bernard-shaws-name-removed-rada-theatre/
In the humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (2007), author John O'Farrell claims that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a Plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to "William Wallace and Gromit".
Given they made a big deal of the 5% WHO threshold when the proportion was down in the 0.1-0.2% range, I imagine once it goes back over 5% they will feel some pressure to move to the next level of restrictions, whatever that will be (given I doubt the rule of 6 stuff kicking in now will be enough to stop that number from being breached relatively soon at current rate of increase).
Trump is ahead on the economy in just about every poll and that is what will count in the Rust Belt she argues.
'It's shite being Scottish, but even more shite being British in BJ's UK'
https://youtu.be/29-LRuuqFT0
If we go to No Deal Brexit so will Boris have done the same to the Tories
It's just wrong.
Her company is called Nosh Detox.
However, I am also old enough to remember back in 2012, when there was a poster on this site called @StuartTruth, who would forensically take apart every poll and show that Obama was overstated.
It turned out - slightly ironically - that the pollsters had got it wrong. Indeed, the pollsters were more wrong in 2012 than in any of the other elections since 1980 (much more wrong that 2016), and Obama was understated.
Since 1980, at the national level, the poll of polls got within 1.5% of the correct lead in all but one occasion, 2012. Even then, the gap wasn't massive, being just under 3%.
Now, it's possible that Trump is understated by more than 3%. I can certainly give you plausible reasons why that might be the case. (Biden supporters unenthused, concern about CV19 affecting voting patters among Trump opponents, underestimating turnout of High School educated voters.)
But I can also give you plausible reasons why they might be the wrong the other way. (Women make up 55% of Presidential voters, and Biden leads by 15 points with them. Mail in voters are more likely not to forget relative to on the day voters. Plus, there is a long history in the UK and the US of pollsters over-correcting each time.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-54134869
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1304872004370264065?s=20
ROFL
Seems to be Europe wide
Regarding protectionism, that may be correct. But he also signed the largest free trade deal in the US's history, and has quietly withdrawn almost all the extra tariffs on China.
Indeed, I suspect that the average tariff paid by the US consumer is lower now than when Obama became President.
The only reason Obama was re elected in 2012 was because he got 93% of the black vote and a huge black turnout compared to the just 88% of the black vote Hillary got.
Will Biden match Obama's black voteshare and turnout even with Harris on the ticket? Unlikely
If Trump is re elected there will be tariffs on EU imports most likely and as you say some of the extra tariffs he levied on China remain
Midway is a recent example - plenty of "movie bits", but most of the story happened *something like* that.
Conversely, though, I have to admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so Shy Trumpers may be a thing. It’s just that in my experience Trumpers are anything but “shy”.
I have no idea what it is about religions that makes Jewish people an exception to this. I think they may be just hated for getting the world right.
James Webber, a partner at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said: “It’s a concession of sorts by the UK, but if this is where the negotiations end up, it will be much closer to the UK’s view of the world than the EU’s.”
Yes, for Trump to win Trafalgar have to be right and pretty much everyone else wrong. Even then it's a close call. On the other hand, if Trafalgar are wrong, it's a blow-out.