Getting Brexit done’ proved a highly effective campaign slogan for the 2019 election. However, the evidence presented here suggests it is going to be of limited use in reinforcing voter trust going forward. Respondents felt that Brexit has been done. As Brexit nudges itself back into the headlines, this may prove to be a mixed blessing for the government.
Given that voters think Brexit has been done, renewed focus on it might call that assumption into question and hence impact on trust in the government. While there are those, including apparently Michel Barnier, who suspect that the internal Market Bill and consequent debate over the Withdrawal agreement were partly manufactured to deflect attention from the government’s handling of the pandemic, these findings indicate that, if this is genuinely the case, it might not prove to be an effective strategy.
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever consider I would celebrate the return, as Prime Minister, of Mrs Thatcher. But today, I would.
Is She back from beyond the grave?
If Mrs T were installed in Number 10 in her current form, would she really do any worse than Johnson?
Really?
There are so many fundamental differences.
Thatcher had a strong work ethic and so was on top of her brief. Johnson isn't.
Thatcher genuinely believed what she was doing was for the best for the country. Even though obviously many people didn't share her view, it was at least a belief that what she was doing was for the common good. Johnson cares about nothing but his own self aggrandizement.
Thatcher had a political philosophy that guided her actions. Again many may have disagreed with that philosophy but it did at least lend a coherence to her actions and decisions. Johnson is too lazy and too dumb to follow any philosophy, political or otherwise.
Finally Thatcher surrounded herself with people who were generally both competent and intelligent. Fools didn't tend to last very long and there was at least still an element of personal responsibility for ones ministries and departments. No one in this government seems to have the faintest notion what personal responsibility means.
Saying that Boris is a terrible Prime Minister because he isn't as good as Mrs Thatcher is like saying a scientist is bad at his job because Einstein was better. Mrs Thatcher towers over any successor or predecessor. She was by far the best peacetime Prime Minister of the last century.
A more realistic comparison would be with a mediocre but not terrible PM, such as Tony Blair or David Cameron.
The point is that Thatcher was a good PM because of those character traits. It is immaterial whether she was the best or not. I would expect any half way decent PM to exhibit most, if not all, of those traits.
Johnson exhibits none of them.
Worse than that- some of the traits he does have (knowing what people want to hear and saying it, for example) are useful in some situations, but not this one. People wanted to hear things were getting back to normal, so he told them they were prematurely, and it's really not helped. Hell, he undercut the five point Covid alert scale (which wasn't stupid) the moment it was launched, because he didn't want to tell people "sorry folks, we're still at four and will be for a while."
And it's the missteps like that that mean that the embalmed remains of The Lady- heck, the embalmed remains of Neville Chamberlain or Lord North- might have been a preferable occupant of No 10 than the current tenant.
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
"Vaguely good or decent" is one thing, "pass the sick bucket" is another.
I said in April / May time that the government could probably get away with some of the mistakes like testing and PPE first time around as most people could see everybody was struggling to keep up and all too easy to say why didn't you follow x country on this, but different country on that.
However, they have now had 6 months to prep for this. I think the incomponence tag sticks forever with them.
Sorry, it was a bit of a trap. That was from Sep 2019, three months before he turned a hung parliament into an 80 seat majority
Wooophs i fell for it. However, I think my point still stands, rather than divisions over Brexit, I believe all these mistakes and incomponence with stick when we have to Lockdown Harder this winter. There really isn't any excuses compared to March, where fairer minded Brits would see a situation that the whole world was struggling with.
But much of the world is again struggling with case numbers that are either rising or persistently high. The idea that the rest of the world has cured it and only the British Isles remain a plague pit is oddly parochial:
The last time I checked, none of these other countries were under the direct rule of World King Boris.
The obsession that Boris has mucked it up all up and other countries are doing great is bizarre.
There’s a small but influential group of people in politics and media who have been driven totally mad by the decision to leave the EU, and think that the government can’t possibly do anything right. In the face of a pandemic, trying to sow political division over everything is not a good attitude to take. Constructive criticism would be much more useful, trying to actually understand issues rather than simply carping from the sidelines.
Talking of being driven mad, there are Brexit-backing Tory MPs and media commentators who have accused Joe Biden of being anti-British because he has warned of the consequences of reneging on treaty commitments and breaking international law. Can you believe it?
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
He's been pretty rude to me in the past but I got over it. I thought in the specific example that so ired you that his response was appropriate, that tweet was the worst kind of pseudo profound drivel. Also, what the hell was "the coast guy" doing in Stirling anyway? Seems like he was miles off his reservation.
As the proposed changes, even somewhat amended, cut against the core principles of the Withdrawal Agreement as signed by Johnson earlier this year, and these changes are imposed unilaterally by one party without reference to the other, I don't imagine for a second that the European Union will accept these changes. No reasonable other party would accept them.
We still have a United Kingdom in default of its treaty obligations.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
He's been pretty rude to me in the past but I got over it. I thought in the specific example that so ired you that his response was appropriate, that tweet was the worst kind of pseudo profound drivel. Also, what the hell was "the coast guy" doing in Stirling anyway? Seems like he was miles off his reservation.
I dislike rudeness but like Malcy and can`t figure out how I square that circle.
What I want to know is if Malcy gets his wish for an independent Scotland does it then follow that his intense dislike of English people then immediately ceases?
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
He's been pretty rude to me in the past but I got over it. I thought in the specific example that so ired you that his response was appropriate, that tweet was the worst kind of pseudo profound drivel. Also, what the hell was "the coast guy" doing in Stirling anyway? Seems like he was miles off his reservation.
The Forth is tidal at Stirling isn’t it? Seems coastal to me.
As the proposed changes, even somewhat amended, cut against the core principles of the Withdrawal Agreement as signed by Johnson earlier this year, and these changes are imposed unilaterally by one party without reference to the other, I don't imagine for a second that the European Union will accept these changes. No reasonable other party would accept them.
We still have a United Kingdom in default of its treaty obligations.
The EU don't get a vote on these changes, only MPs do.
If the MPs don't want these provisions to come into force then they have a choice. They can operate in good faith and give us no reason to exercise these provisions.
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever consider I would celebrate the return, as Prime Minister, of Mrs Thatcher. But today, I would.
Is She back from beyond the grave?
If Mrs T were installed in Number 10 in her current form, would she really do any worse than Johnson?
Really?
There are so many fundamental differences.
Thatcher had a strong work ethic and so was on top of her brief. Johnson isn't.
Thatcher genuinely believed what she was doing was for the best for the country. Even though obviously many people didn't share her view, it was at least a belief that what she was doing was for the common good. Johnson cares about nothing but his own self aggrandizement.
Thatcher had a political philosophy that guided her actions. Again many may have disagreed with that philosophy but it did at least lend a coherence to her actions and decisions. Johnson is too lazy and too dumb to follow any philosophy, political or otherwise.
Finally Thatcher surrounded herself with people who were generally both competent and intelligent. Fools didn't tend to last very long and there was at least still an element of personal responsibility for ones ministries and departments. No one in this government seems to have the faintest notion what personal responsibility means.
Well said, even those of us who mostly disagreed with her and her approach can find many positives in her character and capability that are all too lacking in the current government.
Worse than that- some of the traits he does have (knowing what people want to hear and saying it, for example) are useful in some situations, but not this one. People wanted to hear things were getting back to normal, so he told them they were prematurely, and it's really not helped. Hell, he undercut the five point Covid alert scale (which wasn't stupid) the moment it was launched, because he didn't want to tell people "sorry folks, we're still at four and will be for a while."
Another strong negative narrative formed around moments of perceived ineptitude, exemplified by the PM’s first speech moving towards an easing of lockdown on 10th May. This was frequently recalled by participants as a comic moment when faith in the idea that government had control of the crisis began to fade, with people quoting versions of the speech rather like their favourite parts of comedy sketches. Indeed, at times the viral Matt Lucas imitation of the PM seems to have merged with memories of the actual speech.
Another repeated narrative is the breakdown in trust created by the controversy over Dominic Cummings’ trips to Durham and Barnard Castle. In the groups held shortly after the revelations, this received surprisingly little discussion and there was a fair degree of understanding of the circumstances. As time has passed, this gave way to a story that this is the point when everyone took it as a signal that Covid-19 was now a free-for-all.....
The moral authority of the government was lost not by the event itself, but through the retelling of the story and reflections on its implications. Following the initial two groups we ran the day after the story broke in the media, it came up unprompted in every group when people were asked what issues the current government was most and least trustworthy on
I'm guessing the peak 50/50 split is part red, part blue because it depends upon which party then holds the Veep?
Yes, that would make sense. The ratio looks consistent with their presidential forecast (although it wouldn't be exactly the same as the headline presidential probability because they are correlated forecasts).
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
He's been pretty rude to me in the past but I got over it. I thought in the specific example that so ired you that his response was appropriate, that tweet was the worst kind of pseudo profound drivel. Also, what the hell was "the coast guy" doing in Stirling anyway? Seems like he was miles off his reservation.
The Forth is tidal at Stirling isn’t it? Seems coastal to me.
The Thames is tidal in London, it doesn't make us a seaside resort.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Yes, I think that's fair comment. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that Thatcher was hugely unpopular at various times during her premiership, outside her loyal base of, I'd guess, around 35%. But when the public looked at the alternative they didn't much like what they saw. The Labour Party was just as unelectable as it was during Corbyn's time. And of course the 1981 split by the 'gang of four' into the SDP divided the opposition further.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Interesting. Had Thatcher stayed on, I doubt she would have got rid of the Poll Tax, which would have been a huge weapon for Labour - let alone New Labour. But New Labour would also have been deprived of the two things they most used to destroy Gentleman John: ERM and Tory Sleaze.
I'm guessing the peak 50/50 split is part red, part blue because it depends upon which party then holds the Veep?
Yes, that would make sense. The ratio looks consistent with their presidential forecast (although it wouldn't be exactly the same as the headline presidential probability because they are correlated forecasts).
I'd be very surprised indeed if Harris isn't veep with a 50-50 senate split. For betting purposes, a Dem senate majority is much harder as Sanders and King are ind.
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever consider I would celebrate the return, as Prime Minister, of Mrs Thatcher. But today, I would.
Is She back from beyond the grave?
If Mrs T were installed in Number 10 in her current form, would she really do any worse than Johnson?
Really?
There are so many fundamental differences.
Thatcher had a strong work ethic and so was on top of her brief. Johnson isn't.
Thatcher genuinely believed what she was doing was for the best for the country. Even though obviously many people didn't share her view, it was at least a belief that what she was doing was for the common good. Johnson cares about nothing but his own self aggrandizement.
Thatcher had a political philosophy that guided her actions. Again many may have disagreed with that philosophy but it did at least lend a coherence to her actions and decisions. Johnson is too lazy and too dumb to follow any philosophy, political or otherwise.
Finally Thatcher surrounded herself with people who were generally both competent and intelligent. Fools didn't tend to last very long and there was at least still an element of personal responsibility for ones ministries and departments. No one in this government seems to have the faintest notion what personal responsibility means.
Saying that Boris is a terrible Prime Minister because he isn't as good as Mrs Thatcher is like saying a scientist is bad at his job because Einstein was better. Mrs Thatcher towers over any successor or predecessor. She was by far the best peacetime Prime Minister of the last century.
A more realistic comparison would be with a mediocre but not terrible PM, such as Tony Blair or David Cameron.
The point is that Thatcher was a good PM because of those character traits. It is immaterial whether she was the best or not. I would expect any half way decent PM to exhibit most, if not all, of those traits.
Johnson exhibits none of them.
I am no fan of Thatcher or her divisive politics, but her other attribute was a willingness to have other strong characters with differing views in her cabinet, such as Heseltine. She was willing to either win the argument, or be convinced otherwise. She had massive majorities so could have easily had a cabinet of yes men, but knew that policies thrashed out internally were more likely to hold together afterwards. The Poll Tax did her in when she became too arrogant to listen.
As the proposed changes, even somewhat amended, cut against the core principles of the Withdrawal Agreement as signed by Johnson earlier this year, and these changes are imposed unilaterally by one party without reference to the other, I don't imagine for a second that the European Union will accept these changes. No reasonable other party would accept them.
We still have a United Kingdom in default of its treaty obligations.
The EU don't get a vote on these changes, only MPs do.
If the MPs don't want these provisions to come into force then they have a choice. They can operate in good faith and give us no reason to exercise these provisions.
Sure. The UK would have been in breach of its treaty obligations before and will still be now. Nothing has changed (subject of this header).
The only thing that might change is MPs' perception of their personal responsibility. I get the strong impression Conservative MPs:
Don't care if the legislation breaks international law
Don't want to rebel on this issue
Don't want personally to be implicated in breaking the law
They will be happy if the changes let them off the hook for the third point by saying, you are not breaking the law just yet. The trigger will happen later.
Incidentally the UK accusing the EU of bad faith is grotesque hypocrisy. Intentionally trashing your own signed agreements is the baddest of all faiths. The EU hasn't done anything remotely comparable.
You do have to admire the mental gymnastics the Brexiteers come up with to justify the relentless list of their failures to heed what sensible people say. The idea that it's all the EU's fault because they put the word 'Canada' on a broad-brush slide is the latest and one of the funniest. Bravo!
It's not that simple as has been explained to you many, many times. Barnier has said specifically that due to the UK red lines the destination of UK-EU trade is going to be Canada. When the UK accepted that Canada was the likely destination and asked for it suddenly it was never a possibility.
But that's not the only reasonable interpretation of the Staircase of Doom. After all, there's a step below Canada / S Korea; pure WTO terms. It could be "Based on the UK's red lines, the closest relationship possible is a Canada-style FTA. So we need to work out what the exact rights and obligations are going to be, given that there's a lot more trade going to be covered."
Just because the EU have a certain deal with Canada, they are under no obligation to offer a "find Canada / replace UK" copy to us. And if UK negotiators really thought that was ever on offer, based on that powerpoint slide they are even more naive muppets than I thought.
The DD vision of Brexit was always about the UK getting something for nothing. The endgame looks like that plan is going as well as it deserves to.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
Yeah the Thames beaches are pretty nice, I went to a party on one once. I reckon though if you went to London expecting a beach holiday you might be asking for your money back.
I'm guessing the peak 50/50 split is part red, part blue because it depends upon which party then holds the Veep?
Yes, and it looks like the small overall higher likelihood the Dems have of controlling the senate is down to their higher chance of holding the VP.
It's a shame they don't also include probabilities for things like:
Chances of Dem controlling senate IF Biden wins Chances of Rep controlling senate IF Trump wins
I wouldn't know which one would be higher
"Chances of Rep controlling senate IF Trump wins" has to be higher. Biden is 76.5% to win whilst the Dems are 58% to control the senate. Can't be much of Trump's 23.5% chance that doesn't involve GOP senate control.
I said in April / May time that the government could probably get away with some of the mistakes like testing and PPE first time around as most people could see everybody was struggling to keep up and all too easy to say why didn't you follow x country on this, but different country on that.
However, they have now had 6 months to prep for this. I think the incomponence tag sticks forever with them.
Sorry, it was a bit of a trap. That was from Sep 2019, three months before he turned a hung parliament into an 80 seat majority
Wooophs i fell for it. However, I think my point still stands, rather than divisions over Brexit, I believe all these mistakes and incomponence with stick when we have to Lockdown Harder this winter. There really isn't any excuses compared to March, where fairer minded Brits would see a situation that the whole world was struggling with.
I think my point is that, aside from a surge in popularity around the time of Covid starting to become a thing, Boris has never really been thought of as popular or competent, yet he did still win that majority.
As the proposed changes, even somewhat amended, cut against the core principles of the Withdrawal Agreement as signed by Johnson earlier this year, and these changes are imposed unilaterally by one party without reference to the other, I don't imagine for a second that the European Union will accept these changes. No reasonable other party would accept them.
We still have a United Kingdom in default of its treaty obligations.
The EU don't get a vote on these changes, only MPs do.
If the MPs don't want these provisions to come into force then they have a choice. They can operate in good faith and give us no reason to exercise these provisions.
Sure. The UK would have been in breach of its treaty obligations before and will still be now. Nothing has changed (subject of this header).
The only thing that might change is MPs' perception of their personal responsibility. I get the strong impression Conservative MPs:
Don't care if the legislation breaks international law
Don't want to rebel on this issue
Don't want personally to be implicated in breaking the law
They will be happy if the changes let them off the hook for the third point by saying, you are not breaking the law just yet. The trigger will happen later.
If the change means that international law isn't broken until the Commons votes down the line, then the law isn't broken yet but the explicit threat is there that we will break the law if we need to do so.
I'm guessing the peak 50/50 split is part red, part blue because it depends upon which party then holds the Veep?
Yes, that would make sense. The ratio looks consistent with their presidential forecast (although it wouldn't be exactly the same as the headline presidential probability because they are correlated forecasts).
I'd be very surprised indeed if Harris isn't veep with a 50-50 senate split. For betting purposes, a Dem senate majority is much harder as Sanders and King are ind.
I am no fan of Thatcher or her divisive politics, but her other attribute was a willingness to have other strong characters with differing views in her cabinet, such as Heseltine.
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever consider I would celebrate the return, as Prime Minister, of Mrs Thatcher. But today, I would.
Is She back from beyond the grave?
If Mrs T were installed in Number 10 in her current form, would she really do any worse than Johnson?
Really?
There are so many fundamental differences.
Thatcher had a strong work ethic and so was on top of her brief. Johnson isn't.
Thatcher genuinely believed what she was doing was for the best for the country. Even though obviously many people didn't share her view, it was at least a belief that what she was doing was for the common good. Johnson cares about nothing but his own self aggrandizement.
Thatcher had a political philosophy that guided her actions. Again many may have disagreed with that philosophy but it did at least lend a coherence to her actions and decisions. Johnson is too lazy and too dumb to follow any philosophy, political or otherwise.
Finally Thatcher surrounded herself with people who were generally both competent and intelligent. Fools didn't tend to last very long and there was at least still an element of personal responsibility for ones ministries and departments. No one in this government seems to have the faintest notion what personal responsibility means.
Saying that Boris is a terrible Prime Minister because he isn't as good as Mrs Thatcher is like saying a scientist is bad at his job because Einstein was better. Mrs Thatcher towers over any successor or predecessor. She was by far the best peacetime Prime Minister of the last century.
A more realistic comparison would be with a mediocre but not terrible PM, such as Tony Blair or David Cameron.
The point is that Thatcher was a good PM because of those character traits. It is immaterial whether she was the best or not. I would expect any half way decent PM to exhibit most, if not all, of those traits.
Johnson exhibits none of them.
I am no fan of Thatcher or her divisive politics, but her other attribute was a willingness to have other strong characters with differing views in her cabinet, such as Heseltine. She was willing to either win the argument, or be convinced otherwise. She had massive majorities so could have easily had a cabinet of yes men, but knew that policies thrashed out internally were more likely to hold together afterwards. The Poll Tax did her in when she became too arrogant to listen.
By the time the Poll Tax came about a lot of Thatcherite apostles had been spawned who believed she was infallible, so she'd have heard as many, if not more, people proclaim it was a fantastic idea as those who voiced reservations. Must be difficult to keep a rational perspective in that environment. (I also wonder whether Boris is suffering from something similar.)
Another repeated narrative is the breakdown in trust created by the controversy over Dominic Cummings’ trips to Durham and Barnard Castle. In the groups held shortly after the revelations, this received surprisingly little discussion and there was a fair degree of understanding of the circumstances. As time has passed, this gave way to a story that this is the point when everyone took it as a signal that Covid-19 was now a free-for-all.....
The moral authority of the government was lost not by the event itself, but through the retelling of the story and reflections on its implications. Following the initial two groups we ran the day after the story broke in the media, it came up unprompted in every group when people were asked what issues the current government was most and least trustworthy on
That as well. The narrative that it was a strong government showing it didn't give in to the changing winds of press pressure wasn't a totally malign one, or even a totally stupid one. But in that specific case, it was a colossal misjudgement of the situation, which had harmful political effects (has any party ever lost so much support so quickly?) and disastrous governmental effects (it cut off their ability to respond to Covid at the knees) which are still playing out.
Still, we've all been told. Not a story outside the Westminster bubble, and if it is, it's just deranged enemies of the people Brexit seeking to undermine the PM.
I'm guessing the peak 50/50 split is part red, part blue because it depends upon which party then holds the Veep?
Yes, and it looks like the small overall higher likelihood the Dems have of controlling the senate is down to their higher chance of holding the VP.
It's a shame they don't also include probabilities for things like:
Chances of Dem controlling senate IF Biden wins Chances of Rep controlling senate IF Trump wins
I wouldn't know which one would be higher
"Chances of Rep controlling senate IF Trump wins" has to be higher. Biden is 76.5% to win whilst the Dems are 58% to control the senate. Can't be much of Trump's 23.5% chance that doesn't involve GOP senate control.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Yes, I think that's fair comment. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that Thatcher was hugely unpopular at various times during her premiership, outside her loyal base of, I'd guess, around 35%. But when the public looked at the alternative they didn't much like what they saw. The Labour Party was just as unelectable as it was during Corbyn's time. And of course the 1981 split by the 'gang of four' into the SDP divided the opposition further.
It is often forgotten that without the Falklands, Thatcher would have been lucky to last more than one term. The Party was regularly polling in the 20s throughout 1981. It was this War that gave her a reputation for strength and decisiveness. One which didn't really exist before.
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
That needs to be seen in the context of the pretty well constant invective coming the way of those who post from a pro independence POV. (And, tbf, you have your own capacity to respond in a similar manner when provoked.) Malcolm is an old softie, really.
I said in April / May time that the government could probably get away with some of the mistakes like testing and PPE first time around as most people could see everybody was struggling to keep up and all too easy to say why didn't you follow x country on this, but different country on that.
However, they have now had 6 months to prep for this. I think the incomponence tag sticks forever with them.
Sorry, it was a bit of a trap. That was from Sep 2019, three months before he turned a hung parliament into an 80 seat majority
Wooophs i fell for it. However, I think my point still stands, rather than divisions over Brexit, I believe all these mistakes and incomponence with stick when we have to Lockdown Harder this winter. There really isn't any excuses compared to March, where fairer minded Brits would see a situation that the whole world was struggling with.
I agree, but of course the Americans, French and Spanish and some other European countries are also facing a second wave with assorted problems. So that may mitigate it to some extent.
I'm fairly confident that the government will largely escape blame as the patriotic British public blame their fellow subjects for the resurgence of the virus.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
Boris is a disaster zone but he still retains 40% support and his future will be defined in the next few months.
If he achieves a deal with the EU and the testing issues are addressed (even by using Amazon as suggested this am) then he will continue for some years in office, but a no deal and an uncontrolled second wave would see the end of his premiership and, very quickly, judging by the conservative party record of deposing of leaders
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
I’d say Texas, Georgia and Ohio should be in his column . North Carolina is a toss up , Bloomberg is pumping 100 million dollars into Florida and I think Biden will edge that . Arizona seems to be moving away from Trump , latest NY Times Sienna Poll has Biden ahead by 9 points and I think that should be a Biden pick up also . That 7/4 for all 6 looks ridiculous!
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
Unless the EU blink which I think is more likely than it seemed a week ago.
Though even if they do, no doubt people like Richard will insist that it was the UK that folded.
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever consider I would celebrate the return, as Prime Minister, of Mrs Thatcher. But today, I would.
Is She back from beyond the grave?
If Mrs T were installed in Number 10 in her current form, would she really do any worse than Johnson?
Really?
There are so many fundamental differences.
Thatcher had a strong work ethic and so was on top of her brief. Johnson isn't.
Thatcher genuinely believed what she was doing was for the best for the country. Even though obviously many people didn't share her view, it was at least a belief that what she was doing was for the common good. Johnson cares about nothing but his own self aggrandizement.
Thatcher had a political philosophy that guided her actions. Again many may have disagreed with that philosophy but it did at least lend a coherence to her actions and decisions. Johnson is too lazy and too dumb to follow any philosophy, political or otherwise.
Finally Thatcher surrounded herself with people who were generally both competent and intelligent. Fools didn't tend to last very long and there was at least still an element of personal responsibility for ones ministries and departments. No one in this government seems to have the faintest notion what personal responsibility means.
Saying that Boris is a terrible Prime Minister because he isn't as good as Mrs Thatcher is like saying a scientist is bad at his job because Einstein was better. Mrs Thatcher towers over any successor or predecessor. She was by far the best peacetime Prime Minister of the last century.
A more realistic comparison would be with a mediocre but not terrible PM, such as Tony Blair or David Cameron.
The point is that Thatcher was a good PM because of those character traits. It is immaterial whether she was the best or not. I would expect any half way decent PM to exhibit most, if not all, of those traits.
Johnson exhibits none of them.
I am no fan of Thatcher or her divisive politics, but her other attribute was a willingness to have other strong characters with differing views in her cabinet, such as Heseltine. She was willing to either win the argument, or be convinced otherwise. She had massive majorities so could have easily had a cabinet of yes men, but knew that policies thrashed out internally were more likely to hold together afterwards. The Poll Tax did her in when she became too arrogant to listen.
Is this a bit of rewriting history? What about the Spitting Image vegetables??
Its almost like they are shutting down the economy in case we discover the truth, that we can easily run our country without these dreadfuly injurious lockdowns.
When I advanced the arguments of Gutpa on here, which I have done continually since May of this year, poster after poster poured scorn on me for daring to question the COVID orthodoxy.
How does that look now?
Back in May wasn't the argument from Gutpa that we'd all had the virus and that's why it went away?
Isn't that hypothesis falsified by our current experience?
How it looks now is like a rerun of climate denialism. Any and every possible explanation is declared the gospel truth, regardless of how contradictory the explanation is, or how often debunked by information, so that the unpleasant reality can be avoided.
The argument from March about an "iceberg effect" and "maybe most of us have had it so we can drop restrictions" actually made Tim Harford's latest book.
It was in the section on how what we want to believe governs what we rationalise that the evidence points to (farmers who want wheat prices to be high convince themselves that the market is showing increased prices coming, while bakers (who want wheat prices to be low) convince themselves that the same data points to lowering prices.
Or that smokers convinced themselves for so long that smoking didn't cause cancer, or even that people with HIV convinced themselves that HIV didn't cause AIDS (to the point of refusing treatment for it). It's called "motivated reasoning".
He says: "I could see wishful thinking in operation in March 2020, too, when researchers at the University of Oxford published a 'tip of the iceberg' model of the pandemic. That model suggested that the coronavirus might be much more widespread but less dangerous than we thought, which had the joyfulimplication that the worst would soon be over. It was a minority view among epidemiologists, because the data detective work being done at that point saw little evidence that the vast majority of people had negligible symptoms. Indeed, one of the central points of the Oxford group was that we desperately needed better data to figure out the truth. That, however, was not the message that caught on. Instead, people widely shared the 'good news' because it was the kind of thing we all wanted to be true."
And we since learned that the actual data didn't support the hypothesis. It hasn't stopped some people clinging to it, as if by force of belief, we could still somehow make it true. But reality doesn't care what we believe.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
Really? So what is the State Aid regime which the UK has offered? If you know, please send a copy to Barnier since the government's email attaching it must have gone into his spam folder.
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
Funny, I am sitting here in high Alpine sunshine and reading your post before the earlier comments, imagined you must be referring to the PM.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
Really? So what is the State Aid regime which the UK has offered? If you know, please send a copy to Barnier since the government's email attaching it must have gone into his spam folder.
The UK has indicated that it will accept standard state aid terms and arbitration, it just did with Japan. Barnier needs to get EU leaders to sign up before we agree.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
Really? So what is the State Aid regime which the UK has offered? If you know, please send a copy to Barnier since the government's email attaching it must have gone into his spam folder.
The UK has offered State Aid regime based upon prior FTAs.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Yes, I think that's fair comment. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that Thatcher was hugely unpopular at various times during her premiership, outside her loyal base of, I'd guess, around 35%. But when the public looked at the alternative they didn't much like what they saw. The Labour Party was just as unelectable as it was during Corbyn's time. And of course the 1981 split by the 'gang of four' into the SDP divided the opposition further.
It is often forgotten that without the Falklands, Thatcher would have been lucky to last more than one term. The Party was regularly polling in the 20s throughout 1981. It was this War that gave her a reputation for strength and decisiveness. One which didn't really exist before.
True. It's quite possible that without the Falklands, she'd have been remembered as a spikier version of Heath.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Yes, I think that's fair comment. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that Thatcher was hugely unpopular at various times during her premiership, outside her loyal base of, I'd guess, around 35%. But when the public looked at the alternative they didn't much like what they saw. The Labour Party was just as unelectable as it was during Corbyn's time. And of course the 1981 split by the 'gang of four' into the SDP divided the opposition further.
It is often forgotten that without the Falklands, Thatcher would have been lucky to last more than one term. The Party was regularly polling in the 20s throughout 1981. It was this War that gave her a reputation for strength and decisiveness. One which didn't really exist before.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I’ve been to a restaurant and a cafe this morning in Solihull and not once been asked to provide track and trace details.
Likewise no mask wearing amongst staff (I know they are not required to but I don’t understand why they wouldn’t).
I popped into the pub the other evening mid-MTB night ride. Went to the bar, spoke to the barmaid, bought a pint for me and my mate. Didn't think any more of it.
Only when I got home did I wonder why she hadn't asked me to sign in.
Great beer, by the way – the Ghost Ship was on point.
Its almost like they are shutting down the economy in case we discover the truth, that we can easily run our country without these dreadfuly injurious lockdowns.
When I advanced the arguments of Gutpa on here, which I have done continually since May of this year, poster after poster poured scorn on me for daring to question the COVID orthodoxy.
How does that look now?
Gupta's predictions (that we've all secretly had it) has been proven comprehensively wrong.
I’d say Texas, Georgia and Ohio should be in his column . North Carolina is a toss up , Bloomberg is pumping 100 million dollars into Florida and I think Biden will edge that . Arizona seems to be moving away from Trump , latest NY Times Sienna Poll has Biden ahead by 9 points and I think that should be a Biden pick up also . That 7/4 for all 6 looks ridiculous!
Trump really can't afford to lose any of these. Perhaps Arizona if he's doing particularly well in the rustbelt. But that's an odd combo - it just just goes to show how good a bet Biden is right now.
I’d say Texas, Georgia and Ohio should be in his column . North Carolina is a toss up , Bloomberg is pumping 100 million dollars into Florida and I think Biden will edge that . Arizona seems to be moving away from Trump , latest NY Times Sienna Poll has Biden ahead by 9 points and I think that should be a Biden pick up also . That 7/4 for all 6 looks ridiculous!
I thought that too, but then not sure where the value is (if anywhere). Maybe 4 states should be favorite. But that assumes the election will be quite close, if it ends up being not close at all then 6 or 0 become quite likely...
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Although the tide was beginning to turn a little, if Galteri hadn't played silly whatsits over the Falklands she either wouldn't have fought a 1983 election or lost it. More likely she'd have struggled on to 1984 and there'd have been a hung Parliament.
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever consider I would celebrate the return, as Prime Minister, of Mrs Thatcher. But today, I would.
Is She back from beyond the grave?
If Mrs T were installed in Number 10 in her current form, would she really do any worse than Johnson?
Really?
There are so many fundamental differences.
Thatcher had a strong work ethic and so was on top of her brief. Johnson isn't.
Thatcher genuinely believed what she was doing was for the best for the country. Even though obviously many people didn't share her view, it was at least a belief that what she was doing was for the common good. Johnson cares about nothing but his own self aggrandizement.
Thatcher had a political philosophy that guided her actions. Again many may have disagreed with that philosophy but it did at least lend a coherence to her actions and decisions. Johnson is too lazy and too dumb to follow any philosophy, political or otherwise.
Finally Thatcher surrounded herself with people who were generally both competent and intelligent. Fools didn't tend to last very long and there was at least still an element of personal responsibility for ones ministries and departments. No one in this government seems to have the faintest notion what personal responsibility means.
Saying that Boris is a terrible Prime Minister because he isn't as good as Mrs Thatcher is like saying a scientist is bad at his job because Einstein was better. Mrs Thatcher towers over any successor or predecessor. She was by far the best peacetime Prime Minister of the last century.
A more realistic comparison would be with a mediocre but not terrible PM, such as Tony Blair or David Cameron.
The point is that Thatcher was a good PM because of those character traits. It is immaterial whether she was the best or not. I would expect any half way decent PM to exhibit most, if not all, of those traits.
Johnson exhibits none of them.
I am no fan of Thatcher or her divisive politics, but her other attribute was a willingness to have other strong characters with differing views in her cabinet, such as Heseltine. She was willing to either win the argument, or be convinced otherwise. She had massive majorities so could have easily had a cabinet of yes men, but knew that policies thrashed out internally were more likely to hold together afterwards. The Poll Tax did her in when she became too arrogant to listen.
Is this a bit of rewriting history? What about the Spitting Image vegetables??
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Yes, I think that's fair comment. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that Thatcher was hugely unpopular at various times during her premiership, outside her loyal base of, I'd guess, around 35%. But when the public looked at the alternative they didn't much like what they saw. The Labour Party was just as unelectable as it was during Corbyn's time. And of course the 1981 split by the 'gang of four' into the SDP divided the opposition further.
It is often forgotten that without the Falklands, Thatcher would have been lucky to last more than one term. The Party was regularly polling in the 20s throughout 1981. It was this War that gave her a reputation for strength and decisiveness. One which didn't really exist before.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
Indeed.
Also its worth noting the polls had already started to change before the Falklands War. The Tories had topped 3 of the past 5 polls prior to the war beginning.
05/02/82 Con 41% MORI poll 02/04/82 Falklands War began 09/06/83 Con 42.6% General Election
Its almost like they are shutting down the economy in case we discover the truth, that we can easily run our country without these dreadfuly injurious lockdowns.
When I advanced the arguments of Gutpa on here, which I have done continually since May of this year, poster after poster poured scorn on me for daring to question the COVID orthodoxy.
How does that look now?
Back in May wasn't the argument from Gutpa that we'd all had the virus and that's why it went away?
Also popular at the time was "Covid Goes away in 70 days no matter what it is just a mathematical fact" by an Israel engineering professor.
To get this conclusion he fitted a *checks notes* 6th order polynomial to the data.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
Really? So what is the State Aid regime which the UK has offered? If you know, please send a copy to Barnier since the government's email attaching it must have gone into his spam folder.
The UK has indicated that it will accept standard state aid terms and arbitration, it just did with Japan. Barnier needs to get EU leaders to sign up before we agree.
Barnier can't get EU leaders to agree to anything because the UK hasn't given him any details. This is a prospective international treaty and this issue is very important to them (wrongly, in my view, but they are sovereign states and their priorities are up to them). They want to know what the rules are going to be, what the regulatory regime would be, what the appeals process would be, and what the dispute resolution process would be. They'd also rather like reassurances that Boris isn't going to renege on it as he has with the WA.
Japan is a red herring, the economies are not so intertwined. And let's not forget that the EU has already given a lot of ground on this - they are no longer insisting on full dynamic alignment nor on ECJ oversight, which was their starting position.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
Really? So what is the State Aid regime which the UK has offered? If you know, please send a copy to Barnier since the government's email attaching it must have gone into his spam folder.
The UK has indicated that it will accept standard state aid terms and arbitration, it just did with Japan. Barnier needs to get EU leaders to sign up before we agree.
Barnier can't get EU leaders to agree to anything because the UK hasn't given him any details. This is an international treaty and this issue is very important to them (wrongly, in my view, but they are sovereign states and their priorities are up to them). They want to know what the rules are going to be, what the regulatory regime would be, what the appeals process would be, and what the dispute resolution process would be. They'd also rather like reassurances that Boris isn't going to renege on it as he has with the WA.
Japan is a red herring, the economies are not so intertwined. And let's not forget that the EU has already given a lot of ground on this - they are no longer insisting on full dynamic alignment nor on ECJ oversight, which was their starting position.
The dispute resolution process is for him to negotiate. Why would the UK unilaterally say what it will be?
We've offered the principle, he's not accepted it. If he accepts the principle but wants more specifics that's his job to negotiate.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Yes, I think that's fair comment. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that Thatcher was hugely unpopular at various times during her premiership, outside her loyal base of, I'd guess, around 35%. But when the public looked at the alternative they didn't much like what they saw. The Labour Party was just as unelectable as it was during Corbyn's time. And of course the 1981 split by the 'gang of four' into the SDP divided the opposition further.
It is often forgotten that without the Falklands, Thatcher would have been lucky to last more than one term. The Party was regularly polling in the 20s throughout 1981. It was this War that gave her a reputation for strength and decisiveness. One which didn't really exist before.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
Mrs Thatcher was extremely lucky in a number of ways. She came to power at a time when the post-war consensus had failed completely and change was obviously necessary; her enemies were mostly either incompetent or obviously malevolent or both; deference was a stronger phenomenon than it is now and she did not face the 24-hour media.
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
Yes, I think that's fair comment. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that Thatcher was hugely unpopular at various times during her premiership, outside her loyal base of, I'd guess, around 35%. But when the public looked at the alternative they didn't much like what they saw. The Labour Party was just as unelectable as it was during Corbyn's time. And of course the 1981 split by the 'gang of four' into the SDP divided the opposition further.
It is often forgotten that without the Falklands, Thatcher would have been lucky to last more than one term. The Party was regularly polling in the 20s throughout 1981. It was this War that gave her a reputation for strength and decisiveness. One which didn't really exist before.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
And without the war it is possible the Alliance would have continued its winning form thru to the GE
I’d say Texas, Georgia and Ohio should be in his column . North Carolina is a toss up , Bloomberg is pumping 100 million dollars into Florida and I think Biden will edge that . Arizona seems to be moving away from Trump , latest NY Times Sienna Poll has Biden ahead by 9 points and I think that should be a Biden pick up also . That 7/4 for all 6 looks ridiculous!
I thought that too, but then not sure where the value is (if anywhere). Maybe 4 states should be favorite. But that assumes the election will be quite close, if it ends up being not close at all then 6 or 0 become quite likely...
0 is the best bet of the lot here because of the correlation effect. 1 - 5 are a bit of a tightrope. 6 is also possible though too short perhaps Buying Biden ECVs is a nice way to cover the outcomes here.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
Really? So what is the State Aid regime which the UK has offered? If you know, please send a copy to Barnier since the government's email attaching it must have gone into his spam folder.
The UK has indicated that it will accept standard state aid terms and arbitration, it just did with Japan. Barnier needs to get EU leaders to sign up before we agree.
Barnier can't get EU leaders to agree to anything because the UK hasn't given him any details. This is a prospective international treaty and this issue is very important to them (wrongly, in my view, but they are sovereign states and their priorities are up to them). They want to know what the rules are going to be, what the regulatory regime would be, what the appeals process would be, and what the dispute resolution process would be. They'd also rather like reassurances that Boris isn't going to renege on it as he has with the WA.
Japan is a red herring, the economies are not so intertwined. And let's not forget that the EU has already given a lot of ground on this - they are no longer insisting on full dynamic alignment nor on ECJ oversight, which was their starting position.
The rules will be what we agree in the free trade treaty. That's the issue, the EU wants control over what the UK does in the future, that is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty to a third party organisation. The UK has already said it will agree to a baseline agreement with standard independent arbitration. It's up to EU leaders to recognise that this is as far as the UK will go and work on that basis. Barnier has to get that concession from Berlin and Paris or it will be no deal.
I'm guessing the peak 50/50 split is part red, part blue because it depends upon which party then holds the Veep?
Yes, and it looks like the small overall higher likelihood the Dems have of controlling the senate is down to their higher chance of holding the VP.
It's a shame they don't also include probabilities for things like:
Chances of Dem controlling senate IF Biden wins Chances of Rep controlling senate IF Trump wins
I wouldn't know which one would be higher
The latter is almost certainly higher I think. Outcomes are correlated but Trump is much less likely to win the presidency than Republicans to control the Senate, which suggests that in the simulations where Trump wins the presidency the Republicans will be having a good night and so will likely control the Senate too. Whereas since it's easier for Biden to win than for the Democrats to control the Senate, there will be a high mass put on outcomes where the Dems have the presidency but not the Senate. Nevertheless a Democratic clean sweep must be the single most likely outcome. For instance, assume that in the 10% of simulations where the Republicans win 54 or more seats Trump always wins. Then even if the remaining 14% mass where Trump wins is split equally between Senate outcomes then the Republicans have a 71% chance of holding the Senate if Trump wins and Democrats have a 67% chance of winning the Senate if Biden wins. A more plausible 9% to 5% split of Senate outcomes in that 14% where Trump wins but the Republicans win 53 or fewer seats would put the numbers at 79% and 70% respectively. Denoting results by Presidency/Senate would then assign probabilities to outcomes of R/R 19, R/D 5, D/R 23, D/D 53 in that example, which seems plausible.
Its almost like they are shutting down the economy in case we discover the truth, that we can easily run our country without these dreadfuly injurious lockdowns.
When I advanced the arguments of Gutpa on here, which I have done continually since May of this year, poster after poster poured scorn on me for daring to question the COVID orthodoxy.
How does that look now?
Back in May wasn't the argument from Gutpa that we'd all had the virus and that's why it went away?
Also popular at the time was "Covid Goes away in 70 days no matter what it is just a mathematical fact" by an Israel engineering professor.
To get this conclusion he fitted a *checks notes* 6th order polynomial to the data.
Lol @ 6th order polynomials. The virus is either +ve exponential, -ve exponential, eliminated or endemic steady state.
The dispute resolution process is for him to negotiate. Why would the UK unilaterally say what it will be?
We've offered the principle, he's not accepted it. If he accepts the principle but wants more specifics that's his job to negotiate.
They haven't rejected the principle, they've asked for full details before considering their response. The UK hasn't given that detail. Meanwhile time is running out (in many respects has already run out), but that's not the EU's fault, and nor is the fact that the government - with just weeks to go before the chaos starts - hasn't responded to their perfectly reasonable request.
Its almost like they are shutting down the economy in case we discover the truth, that we can easily run our country without these dreadfuly injurious lockdowns.
When I advanced the arguments of Gutpa on here, which I have done continually since May of this year, poster after poster poured scorn on me for daring to question the COVID orthodoxy.
How does that look now?
Back in May wasn't the argument from Gutpa that we'd all had the virus and that's why it went away?
Also popular at the time was "Covid Goes away in 70 days no matter what it is just a mathematical fact" by an Israel engineering professor.
To get this conclusion he fitted a *checks notes* 6th order polynomial to the data.
Whatever did happen to the Eadric and Henrietta double act?
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
Really? So what is the State Aid regime which the UK has offered? If you know, please send a copy to Barnier since the government's email attaching it must have gone into his spam folder.
The UK has indicated that it will accept standard state aid terms and arbitration, it just did with Japan. Barnier needs to get EU leaders to sign up before we agree.
Barnier can't get EU leaders to agree to anything because the UK hasn't given him any details. This is a prospective international treaty and this issue is very important to them (wrongly, in my view, but they are sovereign states and their priorities are up to them). They want to know what the rules are going to be, what the regulatory regime would be, what the appeals process would be, and what the dispute resolution process would be. They'd also rather like reassurances that Boris isn't going to renege on it as he has with the WA.
Japan is a red herring, the economies are not so intertwined. And let's not forget that the EU has already given a lot of ground on this - they are no longer insisting on full dynamic alignment nor on ECJ oversight, which was their starting position.
The rules will be what we agree in the free trade treaty. That's the issue, the EU wants control over what the UK does in the future, that is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty to a third party organisation. The UK has already said it will agree to a baseline agreement with standard independent arbitration. It's up to EU leaders to recognise that this is as far as the UK will go and work on that basis. Barnier has to get that concession from Berlin and Paris or it will be no deal.
Where 'no deal' also means reneging on the deal we've already done, which won't exactly put us on the front foot.
Another repeated narrative is the breakdown in trust created by the controversy over Dominic Cummings’ trips to Durham and Barnard Castle. In the groups held shortly after the revelations, this received surprisingly little discussion and there was a fair degree of understanding of the circumstances. As time has passed, this gave way to a story that this is the point when everyone took it as a signal that Covid-19 was now a free-for-all.....
The moral authority of the government was lost not by the event itself, but through the retelling of the story and reflections on its implications. Following the initial two groups we ran the day after the story broke in the media, it came up unprompted in every group when people were asked what issues the current government was most and least trustworthy on
That as well. The narrative that it was a strong government showing it didn't give in to the changing winds of press pressure wasn't a totally malign one, or even a totally stupid one. But in that specific case, it was a colossal misjudgement of the situation, which had harmful political effects (has any party ever lost so much support so quickly?) and disastrous governmental effects (it cut off their ability to respond to Covid at the knees) which are still playing out.
Still, we've all been told. Not a story outside the Westminster bubble, and if it is, it's just deranged enemies of the people Brexit seeking to undermine the PM.
And entirely self inflicted. If Cummings had said "I was sick, I panicked and I was wrong, I apologise" the issue would have been buried overnight for all but partisan opponents - the public is a lot more forgiving of mistakes than politicians appear to believe. What really gets there goat is people who make mistakes then have the effrontery to maintain they hadn't.
The dispute resolution process is for him to negotiate. Why would the UK unilaterally say what it will be?
We've offered the principle, he's not accepted it. If he accepts the principle but wants more specifics that's his job to negotiate.
They haven't rejected the principle, they've asked for full details before considering their response. The UK hasn't given that detail. Meanwhile time is running out (in many respects has already run out), but that's not the EU's fault, and nor is the fact that the government - with just weeks to go before the chaos starts - hasn't responded to their perfectly reasonable request.
Once again, our domestic regime has nothing to do with anything. The treaty will have its own state aid provisions enforced by a binding arbitration process. The EU has refused to engage on negotiating what those terms should be because they want to have a say on what our domestic regimes will be. That is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty and it will lead to no deal. Once again, the EU are are fault here, not the UK, at least until Boris decided to tear up the WA.
Comments
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1306899515660664833?s=20
Getting Brexit done’ proved a highly effective campaign slogan for the 2019 election. However, the evidence presented here suggests it is going to be of limited use in reinforcing voter trust going forward. Respondents felt that Brexit has been done. As Brexit nudges itself back into the headlines, this may prove to be a mixed blessing for the government.
Given that voters think Brexit has been done, renewed focus on it might call that assumption into question and hence impact on trust in the government. While there are those, including apparently Michel Barnier, who suspect that the internal Market Bill and consequent debate over the Withdrawal agreement were partly manufactured to deflect attention from the government’s handling of the pandemic, these findings indicate that, if this is genuinely the case, it might not prove to be an effective strategy.
And it's the missteps like that that mean that the embalmed remains of The Lady- heck, the embalmed remains of Neville Chamberlain or Lord North- might have been a preferable occupant of No 10 than the current tenant.
I just voted Yes despite having an English IP address it accepted the vote.
We still have a United Kingdom in default of its treaty obligations.
Edit: and again, from a private browsing window on a VPN to Singapore.
https://youtu.be/6bn1pbhZK4U
She made her own luck to a large extent of course, but it is fascinating to wonder what would have happened if she had come up against Blair at the height of his powers and a more centrist Labour Party in an imaginary 1992 election.
What I want to know is if Malcy gets his wish for an independent Scotland does it then follow that his intense dislike of English people then immediately ceases?
Very wide probability distribution, though.
If the MPs don't want these provisions to come into force then they have a choice. They can operate in good faith and give us no reason to exercise these provisions.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Will-getting-Brexit-done-restore-political-trust.pdf
Another repeated narrative is the breakdown in trust created by the controversy over Dominic Cummings’ trips to Durham and Barnard Castle. In the groups held shortly after the revelations, this received surprisingly little discussion and there was a fair degree of understanding of the circumstances. As time has passed, this gave way to a story that this is the point when everyone took it as a signal that Covid-19 was now a free-for-all.....
The moral authority of the government was lost not by the event itself, but through the retelling of the story and reflections on its implications. Following the initial two groups we ran the day after the story broke in the media, it came up unprompted in every group when people were asked what issues the current government was most and least trustworthy on
It's a shame they don't also include probabilities for things like:
Chances of Dem controlling senate IF Biden wins
Chances of Rep controlling senate IF Trump wins
I wouldn't know which one would be higher
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/photos/item/AA001194
The only thing that might change is MPs' perception of their personal responsibility. I get the strong impression Conservative MPs:
- Don't care if the legislation breaks international law
- Don't want to rebel on this issue
- Don't want personally to be implicated in breaking the law
They will be happy if the changes let them off the hook for the third point by saying, you are not breaking the law just yet. The trigger will happen later.Incidentally the UK accusing the EU of bad faith is grotesque hypocrisy. Intentionally trashing your own signed agreements is the baddest of all faiths. The EU hasn't done anything remotely comparable.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/23/uk-likely-to-end-up-with-canadian-style-deal-warns-michel-barnier
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
At least with Howard you are quoting someone different.
Still, we've all been told. Not a story outside the Westminster bubble, and if it is, it's just deranged enemies of the people Brexit seeking to undermine the PM.
The Party was regularly polling in the 20s throughout 1981.
It was this War that gave her a reputation for strength and decisiveness. One which didn't really exist before.
Malcolm is an old softie, really.
If he achieves a deal with the EU and the testing issues are addressed (even by using Amazon as suggested this am) then he will continue for some years in office, but a no deal and an uncontrolled second wave would see the end of his premiership and, very quickly, judging by the conservative party record of deposing of leaders
Though even if they do, no doubt people like Richard will insist that it was the UK that folded.
Likewise no mask wearing amongst staff (I know they are not required to but I don’t understand why they wouldn’t).
And when was Georgia last polled ?
It was in the section on how what we want to believe governs what we rationalise that the evidence points to (farmers who want wheat prices to be high convince themselves that the market is showing increased prices coming, while bakers (who want wheat prices to be low) convince themselves that the same data points to lowering prices.
Or that smokers convinced themselves for so long that smoking didn't cause cancer, or even that people with HIV convinced themselves that HIV didn't cause AIDS (to the point of refusing treatment for it). It's called "motivated reasoning".
He says: "I could see wishful thinking in operation in March 2020, too, when researchers at the University of Oxford published a 'tip of the iceberg' model of the pandemic. That model suggested that the coronavirus might be much more widespread but less dangerous than we thought, which had the joyfulimplication that the worst would soon be over. It was a minority view among epidemiologists, because the data detective work being done at that point saw little evidence that the vast majority of people had negligible symptoms. Indeed, one of the central points of the Oxford group was that we desperately needed better data to figure out the truth. That, however, was not the message that caught on. Instead, people widely shared the 'good news' because it was the kind of thing we all wanted to be true."
And we since learned that the actual data didn't support the hypothesis. It hasn't stopped some people clinging to it, as if by force of belief, we could still somehow make it true. But reality doesn't care what we believe.
It's quite possible that without the Falklands, she'd have been remembered as a spikier version of Heath.
Hit the North!
Only when I got home did I wonder why she hadn't asked me to sign in.
Great beer, by the way – the Ghost Ship was on point.
Also its worth noting the polls had already started to change before the Falklands War. The Tories had topped 3 of the past 5 polls prior to the war beginning.
05/02/82 Con 41% MORI poll
02/04/82 Falklands War began
09/06/83 Con 42.6% General Election
To get this conclusion he fitted a *checks notes* 6th order polynomial to the data.
Japan is a red herring, the economies are not so intertwined. And let's not forget that the EU has already given a lot of ground on this - they are no longer insisting on full dynamic alignment nor on ECJ oversight, which was their starting position.
We've offered the principle, he's not accepted it. If he accepts the principle but wants more specifics that's his job to negotiate.
Buying Biden ECVs is a nice way to cover the outcomes here.
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1306916788744183808
For instance, assume that in the 10% of simulations where the Republicans win 54 or more seats Trump always wins. Then even if the remaining 14% mass where Trump wins is split equally between Senate outcomes then the Republicans have a 71% chance of holding the Senate if Trump wins and Democrats have a 67% chance of winning the Senate if Biden wins. A more plausible 9% to 5% split of Senate outcomes in that 14% where Trump wins but the Republicans win 53 or fewer seats would put the numbers at 79% and 70% respectively. Denoting results by Presidency/Senate would then assign probabilities to outcomes of R/R 19, R/D 5, D/R 23, D/D 53 in that example, which seems plausible.