Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Polling for Trump v Biden is following almost exactly the same pattern as for the 2018 Midterms – po

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imagePolling for Trump v Biden is following almost exactly the same pattern as for the 2018 Midterms – politicalbetting.com

One of the striking features of the pattern of current Trump v Biden polling is how much it looks like the main polling for the Midterms in 2018. Just like that for the White House race now the Democratic lead in generic congressional polling followed a pretty contant 7-8% in the polling averages. As it turned out the 2018 surveys undershot the Dem final total by more than one point.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Test
  • edited September 15
    Quiet hear this morning.
    New web design looks good. Thanks to RCS, it's no small task makes such a significant change.
    I see Boris coasted to an easy win over Internal Market Bill. Only the Lords might cause him some grief.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,094
    Third. Or second.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,690
    edited September 15
    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,518
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,690
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.
    I'm not talking about making good decisions. I'm talking about communication. Ed's speech last night could be described as "barnstorming". Annelise Dodds does not have that in her.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.
    I'm not talking about making good decisions. I'm talking about communication. Ed's speech last night could be described as "barnstorming". Annelise Dodds does not have that in her.
    Conference season soon, and it would be interesting to see how any of the front bench teams holds a crowd. It will be hard to judge online though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.

    Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
    Am I right in thinking Miliband is the only member of Brown’s cabinet still in the SC?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,146
    Why does it keep saying "Comments are closed"?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,389
    For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    Pulpstar said:

    For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.

    You know, for all Labour’s problems under Corbyn, they’re still doing slightly better than the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.
    And EOTHO, and the grants for the self employed earning under £50k, and the bounce back loans. All delivered with an efficiency that one does not normally associate with the UK government. I accept that politically he will be tested when he has to start clawing some of this largesse back but he is by far the outstanding member of the cabinet this year.

    Patel is not my cup of tea but she has also been quite effective. But with Ashworth, Reeves and now Miliband (again) the balance between the cabinet and the shadow cabinet is closer than it was throughout the sad Corbyn era.
  • Why does it keep saying "Comments are closed"?

    We are making a lot of adjustments at the moment with the design as can be seen. One of the reasons why I'm making the first comment is to get over that comments aren't closed.
  • tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    How dull you have to be, to be shown up as dull by Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper???
    We are getting to TMay territory with that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693
    edited September 15
    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.
  • On a "watch the share, not the lead" basis its hard to see past Biden posting a 49.7% average share.

    If that continues to rise then he is surely next President elect.

    Clinton's leads 4 years ago were with a much lower share of the vote - and then undecideds/others jumped to Trump. There are far fewer undecideds/others this year.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,690
    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.
    And EOTHO, and the grants for the self employed earning under £50k, and the bounce back loans. All delivered with an efficiency that one does not normally associate with the UK government. I accept that politically he will be tested when he has to start clawing some of this largesse back but he is by far the outstanding member of the cabinet this year.

    Patel is not my cup of tea but she has also been quite effective. But with Ashworth, Reeves and now Miliband (again) the balance between the cabinet and the shadow cabinet is closer than it was throughout the sad Corbyn era.
    Fair comment!
  • DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.

    Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
    Am I right in thinking Miliband is the only member of Brown’s cabinet still in the SC?
    Yes, I think so. There needed to be a new generation, but you don't win anything with kids.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.

    Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
    Am I right in thinking Miliband is the only member of Brown’s cabinet still in the SC?
    Lord Falconer is shadow attorney General (unless he's resigned of course).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,094
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    More likely an attempt to manage the factions within Labour, keeping some left wingers in place and avoiding being accused of bringing back the old moderate guard en masse
  • DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    The base is not the issue. That is with him whatever happens. He won in 2016 on the back of independents and low (compared to 2012) turnout among Democrats in key swing states. Voter suppression and compliant courts will help a lot with the latter, so it's probably all about those independents.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,094
    edited September 15
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
  • Pulpstar said:

    For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.

    The Tories are all in with Johnson now, just as the Republicans are with Trump in the US. Having lied to the electorate about the Withdrawal Agreement and now having rejected the rule of law, they desperately need an FTA with the the EU - or for No Deal to be the glorious opportunity Johnson has told us it will be.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,094

    Why does it keep saying "Comments are closed"?

    It sees you coming? ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    The base is not the issue. That is with him whatever happens. He won in 2016 on the back of independents and low (compared to 2012) turnout among Democrats in key swing states. Voter suppression and compliant courts will help a lot with the latter, so it's probably all about those independents.

    No I think that the base is the issue. Trump managed to motivate a lot of traditional non voters to vote for him. It was very similar to what the Brexit campaign achieved here. If he can't repeat that those states that he squeezed by a couple of percent are gone. In contrast the classic Dem supporter is a lot less tempted to vote self-indulgently for some third party non entity to make a point this year.
  • IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.
    Biden is just not that interesting although I suspect we will hear more about his son before this is over. Trump is very interesting, and not in a good way.

    I am not sure how Trump turns this around. Even Biden being incoherent has been discounted because, let's face it, he always has been. Voter suppression will help but he needs more. A vaccine break through? Maybe, but time is short.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,240

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    Oh there is - simply because the calibre of person who 50 years ago would work to become an MP won't go near politics nowadays...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 6,817

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    The same Patel that’s lying through her teeth about testing on the BBC JUST NOW.
  • tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    YES
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.
    Biden is just not that interesting although I suspect we will hear more about his son before this is over. Trump is very interesting, and not in a good way.

    I am not sure how Trump turns this around. Even Biden being incoherent has been discounted because, let's face it, he always has been. Voter suppression will help but he needs more. A vaccine break through? Maybe, but time is short.
    He needs some sort of black swan event that drives voters away from Biden.

    Traditionally both candidates improve on their polling share from here. With Biden's very high share he is recording I would put it at very odds on that he will win an absolute majority of the popular vote, rather than just a plurality. Very hard for Trump to overcome that.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    "Planet Earth to Philip Thompson, are you reading me?"
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 6,817
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Yes at the moment, not done anything except give money away.
  • DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.
    And EOTHO, and the grants for the self employed earning under £50k, and the bounce back loans. All delivered with an efficiency that one does not normally associate with the UK government. I accept that politically he will be tested when he has to start clawing some of this largesse back but he is by far the outstanding member of the cabinet this year.

    Patel is not my cup of tea but she has also been quite effective. But with Ashworth, Reeves and now Miliband (again) the balance between the cabinet and the shadow cabinet is closer than it was throughout the sad Corbyn era.
    Anybody can dole out barrowloads of money, we will see when he has to balance the books and who he robs to do it. Clue, it will not be the toffs that pay for it.
  • tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.
    You are easily impressed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    Pulpstar said:

    For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.

    The Tories are all in with Johnson now, just as the Republicans are with Trump in the US. Having lied to the electorate about the Withdrawal Agreement and now having rejected the rule of law, they desperately need an FTA with the the EU - or for No Deal to be the glorious opportunity Johnson has told us it will be.

    Was Labour "all in" with Corbyn? When the failures became too much for even Labour to bear the tide washed over him and, hey presto, a new dull but allegedly competent Labour appeared. From oh Jeremy to Jeremy who in one easy moment.

    So it will be with Boris and indeed almost all politicians. Trump too will pass and it will be for the next generation of Republicans to restore their party.
  • IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    You need to be in a truss, and get a few patels on the head to knock some sense into you. You really are not the full shilling.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198

    DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    The base is not the issue. That is with him whatever happens. He won in 2016 on the back of independents and low (compared to 2012) turnout among Democrats in key swing states. Voter suppression and compliant courts will help a lot with the latter, so it's probably all about those independents.

    You could almost be writing about UK GE2024.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,387
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.

    Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
    The BilL was going to be opened by Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary. Milliband is Shadow Business Secretary. Unsurprising that he should do it.
  • IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    You need to be in a truss, and get a few patels on the head to knock some sense into you. You really are not the full shilling.
    You preferred when Grayling, Leadsom and Liam Fox were in the Cabinet?

    Funny I don't seem to recall you singing their praises at the time.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.
    You are easily impressed.
    I don't think Miliband is that great, but he's far more accomplished than Dodds.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.
    And EOTHO, and the grants for the self employed earning under £50k, and the bounce back loans. All delivered with an efficiency that one does not normally associate with the UK government. I accept that politically he will be tested when he has to start clawing some of this largesse back but he is by far the outstanding member of the cabinet this year.

    Patel is not my cup of tea but she has also been quite effective. But with Ashworth, Reeves and now Miliband (again) the balance between the cabinet and the shadow cabinet is closer than it was throughout the sad Corbyn era.
    Anybody can dole out barrowloads of money, we will see when he has to balance the books and who he robs to do it. Clue, it will not be the toffs that pay for it.
    It was under Osborne.

    And actually, I don't agree. Our government is not even good at doling out barrowloads of money. Look at the chaos and inefficiency that came with WFTC as an example. Sunak has kept some of the Scottish economy alive despite Sturgeon's best efforts. She's not finished yet though.
  • DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.

    The Tories are all in with Johnson now, just as the Republicans are with Trump in the US. Having lied to the electorate about the Withdrawal Agreement and now having rejected the rule of law, they desperately need an FTA with the the EU - or for No Deal to be the glorious opportunity Johnson has told us it will be.

    Was Labour "all in" with Corbyn? When the failures became too much for even Labour to bear the tide washed over him and, hey presto, a new dull but allegedly competent Labour appeared. From oh Jeremy to Jeremy who in one easy moment.

    So it will be with Boris and indeed almost all politicians. Trump too will pass and it will be for the next generation of Republicans to restore their party.

    Labour will pay the price for Corbyn for many long years yet. I suspect that the Tories will not want to remind the electorate that in September 2020 as a pandemic raged and the economy tanked, they decided to abandon the rule of law to pick a fight that ended in the UK having no trade deal with its largest export market. On the other hand, if they do get a deal, then they may get away with it, though in those circumstances it's hard to see how the ERG will be anything less than furious and the DUP once more betrayed.

  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.
    You are easily impressed.
    I don't think Miliband is that great, but he's far more accomplished than Dodds.
    So was HIGNFY's tub of lard.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.

    Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
    The BilL was going to be opened by Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary. Milliband is Shadow Business Secretary. Unsurprising that he should do it.
    I think that is right. The "last minute substitute" here was Boris not Miliband. But he was good, there's no denying it.
  • DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    The base is not the issue. That is with him whatever happens. He won in 2016 on the back of independents and low (compared to 2012) turnout among Democrats in key swing states. Voter suppression and compliant courts will help a lot with the latter, so it's probably all about those independents.

    You could almost be writing about UK GE2024.

    Absolutely. A party that abandons the rue of law is not one that you can be confident is committed to free and fair elections. Voter suppression is almost guaranteed for 2024 here in the UK.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    You need to be in a truss, and get a few patels on the head to knock some sense into you. You really are not the full shilling.
    You preferred when Grayling, Leadsom and Liam Fox were in the Cabinet?

    Funny I don't seem to recall you singing their praises at the time.
    Replacing faulty old batteries with more faulty old batteries won't make your battery powered device work any better.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.
    You are easily impressed.
    On Miliband 2.0:


    "Labour MPs hooted and honked. Tories, meanwhile, just looked glum. Duffed up by the school swot. I’m not sure which side of the House was the more surprised."

    (Telegraph parliamentary sketch)
  • On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:

    "Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.

    Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.

    That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647
    Ed M isn't even in BF's list of next leader, whereas David is.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,094
    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.
    It is about time we realised the downside of picking people with the X factor but little talent or ability. It’s a lesson being played out in front of us.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,094

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,518
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    I think Johnson underestimated him.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:

    "Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.

    Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.

    That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-

    Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.
  • It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,518
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.
    I'm not talking about making good decisions. I'm talking about communication. Ed's speech last night could be described as "barnstorming". Annelise Dodds does not have that in her.
    He’s not the greatest orator, but he was very good indeed yesterday.
    And Johnson made him look like Demosthenes.
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.
    In Truss we have a fantastic Trade Secretary who is competently getting on with the job, just signing a notable trade deal with Japan that went beyond the EU deal that it is replacing when it comes to data and servces. Her predecessor Liam Fox achieved nothing in years in that role and spent too much of his time worrying about America rather than rolling over deals we already had or rapidly agreeable new deals.
  • DavidL said:

    On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:

    "Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.

    Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.

    That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-

    Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.

    If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.

    Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
    The BilL was going to be opened by Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary. Milliband is Shadow Business Secretary. Unsurprising that he should do it.
    That makes sense. I havent been following too closely.

    I do think that Keir needs a bit of a reshuffle if some of his new faces remain invisible, and he should use Rayner more. Apart from anything else, for internal party management. She is the potential queen over the water for the Left.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

    I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.
  • DavidL said:

    It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

    I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.
    Starmer's dentist appointment isolation was very conveniently timed.
  • Some interesting triumphant guff on here last night. Of course the second reading would pass - the interesting big is the committee stage and then how the government proposes to get it past the House of Lords. Minimal chance of this becoming law in time for them to make use of it.

    Nor do they need to pass a law allowing them to break the law in a limited and very specific way. Just do whatever they want how they want and have Philip/HYUFD/BluestBlue et al say yebbut they have a majority or whatever. Nor does the measure in question have to have anything to do with what they say it is - Shagger drooled on about GB to NI whilst promoting a bill that explicitly didn't cover that.

    So a nice convention they are trying to set. Police arrested you and kept you locked up without charge for 3 weeks? Its cos the EU are trying to remove the common arrest warrant. A minister accidentally sits next to a developer at a £3k a plate party dinner and accidentally saves the developer millions? Its because the EU are trying to stop us fishing or something. And so on.

    Its definitely not a concern that Her Majesty's Government no longer understands the laws it passes only months before, sees no need to obey the law, and is happy to say black is white. Absolutely no reason for anyone - especially alleged conservatives - to consider the impact that a lying lawless government of the present or the future could have upon their lives citing this precedent. No concern at all...

    Oh but they do. Pb Tories have all condemned Boris's behaviour, even if only when carried out by President Trump.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.
    It is about time we realised the downside of picking people with the X factor but little talent or ability. It’s a lesson being played out in front of us.
    Indeed, Dalton Harris, Matt Terry, Louisa, James Arthur, where are they now?
  • Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.

    Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
    The BilL was going to be opened by Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary. Milliband is Shadow Business Secretary. Unsurprising that he should do it.
    That makes sense. I havent been following too closely.

    I do think that Keir needs a bit of a reshuffle if some of his new faces remain invisible, and he should use Rayner more. Apart from anything else, for internal party management. She is the potential queen over the water for the Left.

    I agree that there needs to be some changes at some point, but they won't happen for a while. Dodds has definitely been a disappointment. Miliband made a great speech yesterday, but was up against a joke of a man.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647
    A blood test at GPs could tell who is going to only get mild covid rather than something more serious.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/14/coronavirus-death-rate-could-halved-new-blood-biomarker-tests/

    Possibly available next spring. Sounds a better bet than this landing on the moon nonsense.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.
    It is about time we realised the downside of picking people with the X factor but little talent or ability. It’s a lesson being played out in front of us.
    Equally, you should never assume that someone who is dull is also competent.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,690
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.
    Car crash interview with Patel own BBC this morning. Sounded to me as though she only answered one question, to the effect that if she saw people breaking the rule of six should would report them.
  • DavidL said:

    It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

    I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.

    Then why did he only decide to lead once Starmer announced he would not be able to take part in the debate?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    DavidL said:

    On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:

    "Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.

    Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.

    That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-

    Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.

    If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?

    Well paid, more than slightly arrogant, extremely white, old men (in very large part), apparently. They just know better.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,690

    DavidL said:

    It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

    I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.

    Then why did he only decide to lead once Starmer announced he would not be able to take part in the debate?
    I think the word is hubris. Pride > Fall
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:

    "Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.

    Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.

    That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-

    Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.

    If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?

    Well paid, more than slightly arrogant, extremely white, old men (in very large part), apparently. They just know better.

    You mean the law, don't you?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,518
    At a time when there is clearly an acute testing shortage with the reopening of schools, why are we not using pooled testing, which would seem to be almost ideally matched to monitoring infection in schools ?
  • Some interesting triumphant guff on here last night. Of course the second reading would pass - the interesting big is the committee stage and then how the government proposes to get it past the House of Lords. Minimal chance of this becoming law in time for them to make use of it.

    Nor do they need to pass a law allowing them to break the law in a limited and very specific way. Just do whatever they want how they want and have Philip/HYUFD/BluestBlue et al say yebbut they have a majority or whatever. Nor does the measure in question have to have anything to do with what they say it is - Shagger drooled on about GB to NI whilst promoting a bill that explicitly didn't cover that.

    So a nice convention they are trying to set. Police arrested you and kept you locked up without charge for 3 weeks? Its cos the EU are trying to remove the common arrest warrant. A minister accidentally sits next to a developer at a £3k a plate party dinner and accidentally saves the developer millions? Its because the EU are trying to stop us fishing or something. And so on.

    Its definitely not a concern that Her Majesty's Government no longer understands the laws it passes only months before, sees no need to obey the law, and is happy to say black is white. Absolutely no reason for anyone - especially alleged conservatives - to consider the impact that a lying lawless government of the present or the future could have upon their lives citing this precedent. No concern at all...

    Oh but they do. Pb Tories have all condemned Boris's behaviour, even if only when carried out by President Trump.
    PB Tories have - but they oppose this government. I am speaking about people who claim to be Tories but are explicitly not Conservatives: BluestBlue, Philip, HYUFD.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    DavidL said:

    It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

    I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.

    Then why did he only decide to lead once Starmer announced he would not be able to take part in the debate?
    To be honest I am not sure of the sequencing. Are you?
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.
    Car crash interview with Patel own BBC this morning. Sounded to me as though she only answered one question, to the effect that if she saw people breaking the rule of six should would report them.
    Kids having an impromptu kickabout in the park after school are only breaking the law in a limited and very specific way to protect GB to NI food exports.
  • Some interesting triumphant guff on here last night. Of course the second reading would pass - the interesting big is the committee stage and then how the government proposes to get it past the House of Lords. Minimal chance of this becoming law in time for them to make use of it.

    Nor do they need to pass a law allowing them to break the law in a limited and very specific way. Just do whatever they want how they want and have Philip/HYUFD/BluestBlue et al say yebbut they have a majority or whatever. Nor does the measure in question have to have anything to do with what they say it is - Shagger drooled on about GB to NI whilst promoting a bill that explicitly didn't cover that.

    So a nice convention they are trying to set. Police arrested you and kept you locked up without charge for 3 weeks? Its cos the EU are trying to remove the common arrest warrant. A minister accidentally sits next to a developer at a £3k a plate party dinner and accidentally saves the developer millions? Its because the EU are trying to stop us fishing or something. And so on.

    Its definitely not a concern that Her Majesty's Government no longer understands the laws it passes only months before, sees no need to obey the law, and is happy to say black is white. Absolutely no reason for anyone - especially alleged conservatives - to consider the impact that a lying lawless government of the present or the future could have upon their lives citing this precedent. No concern at all...

    Oh but they do. Pb Tories have all condemned Boris's behaviour, even if only when carried out by President Trump.
    PB Tories have - but they oppose this government. I am speaking about people who claim to be Tories but are explicitly not Conservatives: BluestBlue, Philip, HYUFD.
    I'm a Conservative but not a conservative.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 6,817
    edited September 15
    The biased
    BBC keeps bring people on to show what rot Patel was talking, why can’t they have people saying how wonderful it’s is at present, scrap the license fee sack Liniker.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,702
    @DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 9,765
    edited September 15
    Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.
  • DavidL said:

    It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

    I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.
    Starmer's dentist appointment isolation was very conveniently timed.
    I hope you’re joking but I recall outrage (which was correct) when people suggested Johnson had made up having COVID-19.
  • @DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.

    I think much of the issue people have with human rights is their being interpreted to mean something completely different to what was meant when the Charter was signed.

    Do you respect Lord Diplock as a jurist? What do you think of this?

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 40,725
    edited September 15

    DavidL said:

    It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

    I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.
    Starmer's dentist appointment isolation was very conveniently timed.
    I hope you’re joking but I recall outrage (which was correct) when people suggested Johnson had made up having COVID-19.
    I am indeed joking. I should hope the difference is not just that they were not joking but that Starmer isn't sick or showing any symptoms himself and I hope it stays that way. I wouldn't wish illness on anyone or mock anyone who is ill.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 48,523

    Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.

    I don't think young people are overwhelmingly losing their jobs. Rather, of those losing their jobs, they are overwhelmingly young. Surprising it was only 18-24 that was down, 24-65 were all up in July.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:

    "Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.

    Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.

    That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-

    Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.

    If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?

    Well paid, more than slightly arrogant, extremely white, old men (in very large part), apparently. They just know better.

    You mean the law, don't you?
    (As they almost said on Star Trek) Its law Joff, but not as we know it.

    In all seriousness I agree with the Sumption critique. Judges who think that they know better are ultimately a threat to democracy.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,224
    RobD said:

    Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.

    I don't think young people are overwhelmingly losing their jobs. Rather, of those losing their jobs, they are overwhelmingly young. Surprising it was only 18-24 that was down, 24-65 were all up in July.
    The resilience of the economy and the jobs market is surprisingly good.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    edited September 15
    On topic, if this is basically a rerun of 2018, state polling is kind of flakey, and people are increasingly voting partisan leanings in local races over individual candidates, maybe it's worth looking for states where the 2018 result is out of line with the current polling, and betting that the cumulative 2018 House results will be closer.

    This would suggest that, for example, Florida doesn't flip without a landslide:
    GOP: 52.35%, Dem: 47.10%

    ...but Biden's gonna win Iowa:
    Dem: 50.52%, GOP: 46.54%
  • RobD said:

    Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.

    I don't think young people are overwhelmingly losing their jobs. Rather, of those losing their jobs, they are overwhelmingly young. Surprising it was only 18-24 that was down, 24-65 were all up in July.
    The resilience of the economy and the jobs market is surprisingly good.
    I will be interested to see the results come October.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 41,922

    On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:

    "Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.

    Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.

    That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-

    So why did Brandon Lewis present it in such an inflammatory way?
Sign In or Register to comment.