An aside on Harold Evans: at the Sunday Times he looked aghast at some illegible handwriting before advising: if you are going to scribble, scribble big. Advice to live by, except these days everything is typed.
ETA: unfortunately, both the linked obituaries are paywalled.
Sorry. I have the Richard Hoare obituary which I can send to you privately, if you would like. I sent it to Charles as he did not have access to the Times!
And if you read the article his plans are those HMG are putting in place
Disappointing he has nothing new or original to say
There has been no action plan put forward by anybody other than very slight variations to what the Government has been doing since March. Certainly nothing offered by Labour.
Why should Labour offer any forward planning? It is not their job. They are in opposition having just lost in a landslide GE to Boris Johnson's Conservative Party.
Only reason would be if he wished to be taken more seriously than the Prime Minister.
If he wishes to be Captain Hindsight carping from the sidelines he can continue doing what he's doing . . . if he wants to be a credible leader and alternative Prime Minister he could start giving his own ideas out and showing some real leadership.
Yes. But perhaps he's judging that by late 2024 the pandemic (which I think should be called an epidemic, but anyway ...) will have faded away and there will be other issues on people's minds? And if they see too much of him now, he'll be stale by then. He doesn't want to peak too early because the press might get bored with writing "Starmer is brilliant" articles and instead the fashion might be "Starmer is shit".
Absolutely the pandemic will be over by 2024 (and if its not we all have bigger problems than who wins the next election).
But credibility is hard won. Starmer has an opportunity here to be deemed a credible alternative PM and what's more there's little to lose. If he has great ideas he can win major credibility and be set up to be viewed as a credible PM-in-waiting going forwards . . . and if his ideas are terrible then frankly that'll never be demonstrated since they won't even be tested (and if they are it will be by the Government and it will be the Government's implementation that is said to be shit not his idea they knicked). What has he got to lose?
The only explanation I can think of is that he's not ready, capable or brave enough to step up to the plate.
The 2024 election is not going to be about Labour, it is going to be about the Tories. If they do averagely or better the Tories win. If they do badly, then Labour dont have to be brilliant, just inoffensive and not Corbyn.
Sure if Labour want to rely upon the Tories being a disaster then they can . . . but if the Tories aren't a disaster, then what? If the Tories get a new leader between now and then, then what?
In 1997 Labour were taken credibly and had for years by that point made their own proposals putting themselves as a credible opposition and credible government-in-waiting as opposed to the Tory government. Appears that Starmer isn't remotely ready to do that yet.
But Starmer is performing better in the polls than Gaitskell was at the same stage of the 1959 Parliament and Kinnock in the 1987 Parliament. Even as late as 1978 Thatcher was only recording 2% leads in many polls - and in the Autumn of that year the Tories fell behind.
Indeed, during the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economic crisis in three centuries, Labour are polling nearly as well as William Hague's Conservative Party polled in September 2000 when Tony Blair's Labour had an issue with fuel protests.
A bit of a paradox that although Trump's general and state polling is not good at the moment, his approval rate as president has gone up to 45% with registered voters, the highest for a long time.
A bit of a paradox that although Trump's general and state polling is not good at the moment, his approval rate as president has gone up to 45% with registered voters, the highest for a long time.
Its a case of polarisation isn't it?
He's polling an average 8% behind which means excluding third parties we should expect a 46-54 split. As third parties are getting squeezed due to polarisation coming up to the election it makes sense that he can have bad polls even as his personal rating improves.
And if you read the article his plans are those HMG are putting in place
Disappointing he has nothing new or original to say
There has been no action plan put forward by anybody other than very slight variations to what the Government has been doing since March. Certainly nothing offered by Labour.
Why should Labour offer any forward planning? It is not their job. They are in opposition having just lost in a landslide GE to Boris Johnson's Conservative Party.
Only reason would be if he wished to be taken more seriously than the Prime Minister.
If he wishes to be Captain Hindsight carping from the sidelines he can continue doing what he's doing . . . if he wants to be a credible leader and alternative Prime Minister he could start giving his own ideas out and showing some real leadership.
Yes. But perhaps he's judging that by late 2024 the pandemic (which I think should be called an epidemic, but anyway ...) will have faded away and there will be other issues on people's minds? And if they see too much of him now, he'll be stale by then. He doesn't want to peak too early because the press might get bored with writing "Starmer is brilliant" articles and instead the fashion might be "Starmer is shit".
Absolutely the pandemic will be over by 2024 (and if its not we all have bigger problems than who wins the next election).
But credibility is hard won. Starmer has an opportunity here to be deemed a credible alternative PM and what's more there's little to lose. If he has great ideas he can win major credibility and be set up to be viewed as a credible PM-in-waiting going forwards . . . and if his ideas are terrible then frankly that'll never be demonstrated since they won't even be tested (and if they are it will be by the Government and it will be the Government's implementation that is said to be shit not his idea they knicked). What has he got to lose?
The only explanation I can think of is that he's not ready, capable or brave enough to step up to the plate.
The 2024 election is not going to be about Labour, it is going to be about the Tories. If they do averagely or better the Tories win. If they do badly, then Labour dont have to be brilliant, just inoffensive and not Corbyn.
Sure if Labour want to rely upon the Tories being a disaster then they can . . . but if the Tories aren't a disaster, then what? If the Tories get a new leader between now and then, then what?
In 1997 Labour were taken credibly and had for years by that point made their own proposals putting themselves as a credible opposition and credible government-in-waiting as opposed to the Tory government. Appears that Starmer isn't remotely ready to do that yet.
But Starmer is performing better in the polls than Gaitskell was at the same stage of the 1959 Parliament and Kinnock in the 1987 Parliament. Even as late as 1978 Thatcher was only recording 2% leads in many polls - and in the Autumn of that year the Tories fell behind.
Indeed, during the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economic crisis in three centuries, Labour are polling nearly as well as William Hague's Conservative Party polled in September 2000 when Tony Blair's Labour had an issue with fuel protests.
But the pandemic - and the related 'rally around the flag' effect - is likely to be still bolstering Tory support albeit to nothing like the extent as during the early phase of the crisis.
And if you read the article his plans are those HMG are putting in place
Disappointing he has nothing new or original to say
There has been no action plan put forward by anybody other than very slight variations to what the Government has been doing since March. Certainly nothing offered by Labour.
Why should Labour offer any forward planning? It is not their job. They are in opposition having just lost in a landslide GE to Boris Johnson's Conservative Party.
Only reason would be if he wished to be taken more seriously than the Prime Minister.
If he wishes to be Captain Hindsight carping from the sidelines he can continue doing what he's doing . . . if he wants to be a credible leader and alternative Prime Minister he could start giving his own ideas out and showing some real leadership.
Yes. But perhaps he's judging that by late 2024 the pandemic (which I think should be called an epidemic, but anyway ...) will have faded away and there will be other issues on people's minds? And if they see too much of him now, he'll be stale by then. He doesn't want to peak too early because the press might get bored with writing "Starmer is brilliant" articles and instead the fashion might be "Starmer is shit".
Absolutely the pandemic will be over by 2024 (and if its not we all have bigger problems than who wins the next election).
But credibility is hard won. Starmer has an opportunity here to be deemed a credible alternative PM and what's more there's little to lose. If he has great ideas he can win major credibility and be set up to be viewed as a credible PM-in-waiting going forwards . . . and if his ideas are terrible then frankly that'll never be demonstrated since they won't even be tested (and if they are it will be by the Government and it will be the Government's implementation that is said to be shit not his idea they knicked). What has he got to lose?
The only explanation I can think of is that he's not ready, capable or brave enough to step up to the plate.
The 2024 election is not going to be about Labour, it is going to be about the Tories. If they do averagely or better the Tories win. If they do badly, then Labour dont have to be brilliant, just inoffensive and not Corbyn.
Sure if Labour want to rely upon the Tories being a disaster then they can . . . but if the Tories aren't a disaster, then what? If the Tories get a new leader between now and then, then what?
In 1997 Labour were taken credibly and had for years by that point made their own proposals putting themselves as a credible opposition and credible government-in-waiting as opposed to the Tory government. Appears that Starmer isn't remotely ready to do that yet.
But Starmer is performing better in the polls than Gaitskell was at the same stage of the 1959 Parliament and Kinnock in the 1987 Parliament. Even as late as 1978 Thatcher was only recording 2% leads in many polls - and in the Autumn of that year the Tories fell behind.
Indeed, during the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economic crisis in three centuries, Labour are polling nearly as well as William Hague's Conservative Party polled in September 2000 when Tony Blair's Labour had an issue with fuel protests.
But the pandemic - and the related 'rally around the flag' effect - is likely to be still bolstering Tory support albeit to nothing like the extent as during the early phase of the crisis.
Possibly, possibly not. We don't know, it could be going either way.
Quite frankly the only thing we know is that we know nothing. As it stands either Labour or the Tories could win the next election. Either Johnson or Starmer could win it. Or A. N. Other Tory or Labour leader.
As it stands despite the pandemic neither any party nor any leader is pulling a major lead and all is to play for.
And if you read the article his plans are those HMG are putting in place
Disappointing he has nothing new or original to say
There has been no action plan put forward by anybody other than very slight variations to what the Government has been doing since March. Certainly nothing offered by Labour.
Why should Labour offer any forward planning? It is not their job. They are in opposition having just lost in a landslide GE to Boris Johnson's Conservative Party.
Only reason would be if he wished to be taken more seriously than the Prime Minister.
If he wishes to be Captain Hindsight carping from the sidelines he can continue doing what he's doing . . . if he wants to be a credible leader and alternative Prime Minister he could start giving his own ideas out and showing some real leadership.
Yes. But perhaps he's judging that by late 2024 the pandemic (which I think should be called an epidemic, but anyway ...) will have faded away and there will be other issues on people's minds? And if they see too much of him now, he'll be stale by then. He doesn't want to peak too early because the press might get bored with writing "Starmer is brilliant" articles and instead the fashion might be "Starmer is shit".
Absolutely the pandemic will be over by 2024 (and if its not we all have bigger problems than who wins the next election).
But credibility is hard won. Starmer has an opportunity here to be deemed a credible alternative PM and what's more there's little to lose. If he has great ideas he can win major credibility and be set up to be viewed as a credible PM-in-waiting going forwards . . . and if his ideas are terrible then frankly that'll never be demonstrated since they won't even be tested (and if they are it will be by the Government and it will be the Government's implementation that is said to be shit not his idea they knicked). What has he got to lose?
The only explanation I can think of is that he's not ready, capable or brave enough to step up to the plate.
The 2024 election is not going to be about Labour, it is going to be about the Tories. If they do averagely or better the Tories win. If they do badly, then Labour dont have to be brilliant, just inoffensive and not Corbyn.
Sure if Labour want to rely upon the Tories being a disaster then they can . . . but if the Tories aren't a disaster, then what? If the Tories get a new leader between now and then, then what?
In 1997 Labour were taken credibly and had for years by that point made their own proposals putting themselves as a credible opposition and credible government-in-waiting as opposed to the Tory government. Appears that Starmer isn't remotely ready to do that yet.
But Starmer is performing better in the polls than Gaitskell was at the same stage of the 1959 Parliament and Kinnock in the 1987 Parliament. Even as late as 1978 Thatcher was only recording 2% leads in many polls - and in the Autumn of that year the Tories fell behind.
Indeed, during the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economic crisis in three centuries, Labour are polling nearly as well as William Hague's Conservative Party polled in September 2000 when Tony Blair's Labour had an issue with fuel protests.
But the pandemic - and the related 'rally around the flag' effect - is likely to be still bolstering Tory support albeit to nothing like the extent as during the early phase of the crisis.
Possibly, possibly not. We don't know, it could be going either way.
Quite frankly the only thing we know is that we know nothing. As it stands either Labour or the Tories could win the next election. Either Johnson or Starmer could win it. Or A. N. Other Tory or Labour leader.
As it stands despite the pandemic neither any party nor any leader is pulling a major lead and all is to play for.
I don't disagree on that - but a clear trend is apparent over several months now. Very few commentators - on here or anywhere else - were seriously contemplating last January the possibility of the parties being level pegging in the polls by this Autumn or of any Labour lead at all. This has happened despite normal party politics having been effectively suspended to a considerable extent. The impact of any economic tsunami remains to be seen and felt.
And if you read the article his plans are those HMG are putting in place
Disappointing he has nothing new or original to say
There has been no action plan put forward by anybody other than very slight variations to what the Government has been doing since March. Certainly nothing offered by Labour.
Why should Labour offer any forward planning? It is not their job. They are in opposition having just lost in a landslide GE to Boris Johnson's Conservative Party.
Only reason would be if he wished to be taken more seriously than the Prime Minister.
If he wishes to be Captain Hindsight carping from the sidelines he can continue doing what he's doing . . . if he wants to be a credible leader and alternative Prime Minister he could start giving his own ideas out and showing some real leadership.
Yes. But perhaps he's judging that by late 2024 the pandemic (which I think should be called an epidemic, but anyway ...) will have faded away and there will be other issues on people's minds? And if they see too much of him now, he'll be stale by then. He doesn't want to peak too early because the press might get bored with writing "Starmer is brilliant" articles and instead the fashion might be "Starmer is shit".
Absolutely the pandemic will be over by 2024 (and if its not we all have bigger problems than who wins the next election).
But credibility is hard won. Starmer has an opportunity here to be deemed a credible alternative PM and what's more there's little to lose. If he has great ideas he can win major credibility and be set up to be viewed as a credible PM-in-waiting going forwards . . . and if his ideas are terrible then frankly that'll never be demonstrated since they won't even be tested (and if they are it will be by the Government and it will be the Government's implementation that is said to be shit not his idea they knicked). What has he got to lose?
The only explanation I can think of is that he's not ready, capable or brave enough to step up to the plate.
The 2024 election is not going to be about Labour, it is going to be about the Tories. If they do averagely or better the Tories win. If they do badly, then Labour dont have to be brilliant, just inoffensive and not Corbyn.
Sure if Labour want to rely upon the Tories being a disaster then they can . . . but if the Tories aren't a disaster, then what? If the Tories get a new leader between now and then, then what?
In 1997 Labour were taken credibly and had for years by that point made their own proposals putting themselves as a credible opposition and credible government-in-waiting as opposed to the Tory government. Appears that Starmer isn't remotely ready to do that yet.
But Starmer is performing better in the polls than Gaitskell was at the same stage of the 1959 Parliament and Kinnock in the 1987 Parliament. Even as late as 1978 Thatcher was only recording 2% leads in many polls - and in the Autumn of that year the Tories fell behind.
Indeed, during the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economic crisis in three centuries, Labour are polling nearly as well as William Hague's Conservative Party polled in September 2000 when Tony Blair's Labour had an issue with fuel protests.
But the pandemic - and the related 'rally around the flag' effect - is likely to be still bolstering Tory support albeit to nothing like the extent as during the early phase of the crisis.
Possibly, possibly not. We don't know, it could be going either way.
Quite frankly the only thing we know is that we know nothing. As it stands either Labour or the Tories could win the next election. Either Johnson or Starmer could win it. Or A. N. Other Tory or Labour leader.
As it stands despite the pandemic neither any party nor any leader is pulling a major lead and all is to play for.
I don't disagree on that - but a clear trend is apparent over several months now. Very few commentators - on here or anywhere else - were seriously contemplating last January the possibility of the parties being level pegging in the polls by this Autumn or of any Labour lead at all. This has happened despite normal party politics having been effectively suspended to a considerable extent. The impact of any economic tsunami remains to be seen and felt.
I have said for months I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour ahead in the polls soon. In fact I'm surprised its taken them this long to pull level.
Its extremely rare for Tory PMs to maintain poll leads.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
And if you read the article his plans are those HMG are putting in place
Disappointing he has nothing new or original to say
There has been no action plan put forward by anybody other than very slight variations to what the Government has been doing since March. Certainly nothing offered by Labour.
Why should Labour offer any forward planning? It is not their job. They are in opposition having just lost in a landslide GE to Boris Johnson's Conservative Party.
Only reason would be if he wished to be taken more seriously than the Prime Minister.
If he wishes to be Captain Hindsight carping from the sidelines he can continue doing what he's doing . . . if he wants to be a credible leader and alternative Prime Minister he could start giving his own ideas out and showing some real leadership.
Yes. But perhaps he's judging that by late 2024 the pandemic (which I think should be called an epidemic, but anyway ...) will have faded away and there will be other issues on people's minds? And if they see too much of him now, he'll be stale by then. He doesn't want to peak too early because the press might get bored with writing "Starmer is brilliant" articles and instead the fashion might be "Starmer is shit".
Absolutely the pandemic will be over by 2024 (and if its not we all have bigger problems than who wins the next election).
But credibility is hard won. Starmer has an opportunity here to be deemed a credible alternative PM and what's more there's little to lose. If he has great ideas he can win major credibility and be set up to be viewed as a credible PM-in-waiting going forwards . . . and if his ideas are terrible then frankly that'll never be demonstrated since they won't even be tested (and if they are it will be by the Government and it will be the Government's implementation that is said to be shit not his idea they knicked). What has he got to lose?
The only explanation I can think of is that he's not ready, capable or brave enough to step up to the plate.
The 2024 election is not going to be about Labour, it is going to be about the Tories. If they do averagely or better the Tories win. If they do badly, then Labour dont have to be brilliant, just inoffensive and not Corbyn.
Sure if Labour want to rely upon the Tories being a disaster then they can . . . but if the Tories aren't a disaster, then what? If the Tories get a new leader between now and then, then what?
In 1997 Labour were taken credibly and had for years by that point made their own proposals putting themselves as a credible opposition and credible government-in-waiting as opposed to the Tory government. Appears that Starmer isn't remotely ready to do that yet.
But Starmer is performing better in the polls than Gaitskell was at the same stage of the 1959 Parliament and Kinnock in the 1987 Parliament. Even as late as 1978 Thatcher was only recording 2% leads in many polls - and in the Autumn of that year the Tories fell behind.
Indeed, during the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economic crisis in three centuries, Labour are polling nearly as well as William Hague's Conservative Party polled in September 2000 when Tony Blair's Labour had an issue with fuel protests.
But the pandemic - and the related 'rally around the flag' effect - is likely to be still bolstering Tory support albeit to nothing like the extent as during the early phase of the crisis.
Possibly, possibly not. We don't know, it could be going either way.
Quite frankly the only thing we know is that we know nothing. As it stands either Labour or the Tories could win the next election. Either Johnson or Starmer could win it. Or A. N. Other Tory or Labour leader.
As it stands despite the pandemic neither any party nor any leader is pulling a major lead and all is to play for.
I don't disagree on that - but a clear trend is apparent over several months now. Very few commentators - on here or anywhere else - were seriously contemplating last January the possibility of the parties being level pegging in the polls by this Autumn or of any Labour lead at all. This has happened despite normal party politics having been effectively suspended to a considerable extent. The impact of any economic tsunami remains to be seen and felt.
I have said for months I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour ahead in the polls soon. In fact I'm surprised its taken them this long to pull level.
Its extremely rare for Tory PMs to maintain poll leads.
Post the October 1959 election ,Macmillan's Tories maintained a polling lead until Autumn 1961. Following Thatcher's June 1987 victory, the Tories remained ahead until May 1989.
Anyone who lets something as inane as this affect their vote was looking for an excuse to change their vote already . . . so probably would have found something either way.
People ignore personal foibles when it comes to those they're willing to vote for, find a way to excuse it. I make a point of excusing it for everyone and never attacking anyone for this bullshit because I couldn't care less what happens in someone else's bedroom that's none of my business.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
Its entirely possible people will read that and think "how sweet" rather than be outraged.
Anyone who lets something as inane as this affect their vote was looking for an excuse to change their vote already . . . so probably would have found something either way.
People ignore personal foibles when it comes to those they're willing to vote for, find a way to excuse it. I make a point of excusing it for everyone and never attacking anyone for this bullshit because I couldn't care less what happens in someone else's bedroom that's none of my business.
There are many who will take the view that a candidate who betrays a spouse in this way is not to be trusted in matters of public policy.It reveals a great deal re- the individual's code of ethics.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
Its entirely possible people will read that and think "how sweet" rather than be outraged.
I would tend to agree. If a man behaved like that towards me in an Online exchange they would go up in my estimation.
Anyone who lets something as inane as this affect their vote was looking for an excuse to change their vote already . . . so probably would have found something either way.
People ignore personal foibles when it comes to those they're willing to vote for, find a way to excuse it. I make a point of excusing it for everyone and never attacking anyone for this bullshit because I couldn't care less what happens in someone else's bedroom that's none of my business.
There are many who will take the view that a candidate who betrays a spouse in this way is not to be trusted in matters of public policy.It reveals a great deal re- the individual's code of ethics.
Puritanical fools who should get the stick out of their arse.
Anyone who lets something as inane as this affect their vote was looking for an excuse to change their vote already . . . so probably would have found something either way.
People ignore personal foibles when it comes to those they're willing to vote for, find a way to excuse it. I make a point of excusing it for everyone and never attacking anyone for this bullshit because I couldn't care less what happens in someone else's bedroom that's none of my business.
There are many who will take the view that a candidate who betrays a spouse in this way is not to be trusted in matters of public policy.It reveals a great deal re- the individual's code of ethics.
Puritanical fools who should get the stick out of their arse.
Many do lament the collapse in moral standards. Those who never adhered to them will not see a problem.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
It actually is and I think, in an ideal world, Philip’s view is right, it shouldn’t affect votes. However, it’s not that and there will be some voters who think like Justin (who also has the right to his views) and believe that a candidate that cheats on his spouse will screw the electorate.
Let’s put it another way, how many comments do we hear on here about “shagger” Johnson when people want to criticise him?
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
The issue is not the content of the texts, which is not in anyway salacious, or any claims that they were unwelcome, which does not appear to be in any way the case, but that Cunningham is supposedly happily married and sent them to another woman not his wife.
That may have some impact on more conservative voters, but they’d be much more likely to be supporting his opponent anyway. Probably the worst impact is that it calls Cunningham’s honesty and integrity into question. It probably will damage him somewhat, but he has been consistently ahead of Tillis, sometimes well ahead, and Tillis has just been diagnosed with Covid so will not be able to campaign much for a while.
So I think this race still leans towards Cunningham, but it may mean the Ds will have to pump more resources in that they might have been intending to send elsewhere.
Anyone who lets something as inane as this affect their vote was looking for an excuse to change their vote already . . . so probably would have found something either way.
People ignore personal foibles when it comes to those they're willing to vote for, find a way to excuse it. I make a point of excusing it for everyone and never attacking anyone for this bullshit because I couldn't care less what happens in someone else's bedroom that's none of my business.
There are many who will take the view that a candidate who betrays a spouse in this way is not to be trusted in matters of public policy.It reveals a great deal re- the individual's code of ethics.
Puritanical fools who should get the stick out of their arse.
Many do lament the collapse in moral standards. Those who never adhered to them will not see a problem.
I have morals but think morals have the square root of nothing to do with politics.
Morals, like religion, should belong to the individual, not the ballot box.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
It actually is and I think, in an ideal world, Philip’s view is right, it shouldn’t affect votes. However, it’s not that and there will be some voters who think like Justin (who also has the right to his views) and believe that a candidate that cheats on his spouse will screw the electorate.
Let’s put it another way, how many comments do we hear on here about “shagger” Johnson when people want to criticise him?
Let's put it another way, did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson getting the highest vote share of any party since 1979?
Did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson from wracking up a bigger vote share than Tony Blair ever achieved?
Nobody cares about shagging. The only people who bring it up are people who would dislike him anyway.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
It actually is and I think, in an ideal world, Philip’s view is right, it shouldn’t affect votes. However, it’s not that and there will be some voters who think like Justin (who also has the right to his views) and believe that a candidate that cheats on his spouse will screw the electorate.
Let’s put it another way, how many comments do we hear on here about “shagger” Johnson when people want to criticise him?
Let's put it another way, did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson getting the highest vote share of any party since 1979?
Did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson from wracking up a bigger vote share than Tony Blair ever achieved?
Nobody cares about shagging. The only people who bring it up are people who would dislike him anyway.
The UK is not the US. Religion hardly plays a role in UK politics but it’s an important factor in a number of US states.
There are two things here. What we think about personally and how then it impacts on the voting.
Personally, I said my view below. Politically, I think it will impact him, particularly with older Black American voters who are Democrat but also deeply religious, which is a crucial Democrat voting bloc in places like NC. They won’t vote for Tillis but they might feel they can’t vote for Cunningham nkw
Anyone who lets something as inane as this affect their vote was looking for an excuse to change their vote already . . . so probably would have found something either way.
People ignore personal foibles when it comes to those they're willing to vote for, find a way to excuse it. I make a point of excusing it for everyone and never attacking anyone for this bullshit because I couldn't care less what happens in someone else's bedroom that's none of my business.
There are many who will take the view that a candidate who betrays a spouse in this way is not to be trusted in matters of public policy.It reveals a great deal re- the individual's code of ethics.
Puritanical fools who should get the stick out of their arse.
Many do lament the collapse in moral standards. Those who never adhered to them will not see a problem.
I have morals but think morals have the square root of nothing to do with politics.
Morals, like religion, should belong to the individual, not the ballot box.
Morality and religion both contribute to what many perceive as 'right' and 'wrong' or 'good' and 'evil' , and in that context the personal behaviour of a candidate might be seen as providing clear evidence as to where they stand in such a spectrum.
An aside on Harold Evans: at the Sunday Times he looked aghast at some illegible handwriting before advising: if you are going to scribble, scribble big. Advice to live by, except these days everything is typed.
ETA: unfortunately, both the linked obituaries are paywalled.
Sorry. I have the Richard Hoare obituary which I can send to you privately, if you would like. I sent it to Charles as he did not have access to the Times!
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
It actually is and I think, in an ideal world, Philip’s view is right, it shouldn’t affect votes. However, it’s not that and there will be some voters who think like Justin (who also has the right to his views) and believe that a candidate that cheats on his spouse will screw the electorate.
Let’s put it another way, how many comments do we hear on here about “shagger” Johnson when people want to criticise him?
Let's put it another way, did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson getting the highest vote share of any party since 1979?
Did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson from wracking up a bigger vote share than Tony Blair ever achieved?
Nobody cares about shagging. The only people who bring it up are people who would dislike him anyway.
That is an exaggeration - though doubtless reflects your own experience. I am aware of married schoolmasters who were obliged to resign their positions when details of extramarital affairs emerged.
Makes you start to wonder how much of it was edited? TBH, with deep fake technology, given the amount of footage they have of Trump, they can get the computer to create a speech.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
It actually is and I think, in an ideal world, Philip’s view is right, it shouldn’t affect votes. However, it’s not that and there will be some voters who think like Justin (who also has the right to his views) and believe that a candidate that cheats on his spouse will screw the electorate.
Let’s put it another way, how many comments do we hear on here about “shagger” Johnson when people want to criticise him?
Let's put it another way, did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson getting the highest vote share of any party since 1979?
Did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson from wracking up a bigger vote share than Tony Blair ever achieved?
Nobody cares about shagging. The only people who bring it up are people who would dislike him anyway.
That is an exaggeration - though doubtless reflects your own experience. I am aware of married schoolmasters who were obliged to resign their positions when details of extramarital affairs emerged.
Which is ludicrous puritanical bullshit.
Some of the greatest leaders the world has seen have had personal moral failings. So what, we're all human. The Greeks considered all their gods to have human failings too precisely for that, the idea that we should be perfect or beyond the pale is the most rank form of puritanical bullshit.
Many of America's Presidents including some of their greatest have been adulterers. Washington, FDR, Jefferson, JFK, Clinton and many more were all adulterers.
In WWII we were led by someone who liked his alcohol, the Americans were led by an adulterer, and the Germans were led by a vegetarian animal lover.
I’m fairly convinced that video of Trump was pre-recorded yesterday in the White House and not in the hospital.
Based on?
1. Lack of any specifics about the days events and his treatment. It’s entirely generic. 2. Lack of IV or hospital wristband. 3. Would the hospital let a camera crew in with a covid patient? 4. References to “upstairs” like he’s in the White House and upstairs is well, upstairs. 5. The decor not matching any known photos of the presidential suite at said hospital.
I’m fairly convinced that video of Trump was pre-recorded yesterday in the White House and not in the hospital.
Based on?
1. Lack of any specifics about the days events and his treatment. It’s entirely generic. 2. Lack of IV or hospital wristband. 3. Would the hospital let a camera crew in with a covid patient? 4. References to “upstairs” like he’s in the White House and upstairs is well, upstairs. 5. The decor not matching any known photos of the presidential suite at said hospital.
🤷♂️
#5 has already been debunked (by a blue checkmark journalist on the twatter). The pictures recently circulated in the media of the suite are ones from 15 years ago and since has been changed.
#4, not sure about that either. Its the way he talks, I didn't take that that way at all. He says something like "people told me I should stay at the White House, stay upstairs".
I’m fairly convinced that video of Trump was pre-recorded yesterday in the White House and not in the hospital.
Based on?
1. Lack of any specifics about the days events and his treatment. It’s entirely generic. 2. Lack of IV or hospital wristband. 3. Would the hospital let a camera crew in with a covid patient? 4. References to “upstairs” like he’s in the White House and upstairs is well, upstairs. 5. The decor not matching any known photos of the presidential suite at said hospital.
🤷♂️
#5 has already been debunked (by a blue checkmark journalist on the twatter). The pictures recently circulated in the media of the suite are ones from 15 years ago and since has been changed.
It might have since been changed, but it’s still an odd backdrop for what is a hospital, especially if it was changed recently.
I’m fairly convinced that video of Trump was pre-recorded yesterday in the White House and not in the hospital.
Based on?
1. Lack of any specifics about the days events and his treatment. It’s entirely generic. 2. Lack of IV or hospital wristband. 3. Would the hospital let a camera crew in with a covid patient? 4. References to “upstairs” like he’s in the White House and upstairs is well, upstairs. 5. The decor not matching any known photos of the presidential suite at said hospital.
🤷♂️
#5 has already been debunked (by a blue checkmark journalist on the twatter). The pictures recently circulated in the media of the suite are ones from 15 years ago and since has been changed.
It might have since been changed, but it’s still an odd backdrop for what is a hospital, especially if it was changed recently.
Early today they were reporting on the main news networks that it isn't actually just a hospital suite. It is a number of rooms, including an office, a dining room, a sitting room, etc.
That all been said, I have to say the white wood panelling background looks a lot like pictures in the white house. The thing is if they have done it in the White House, there are enough people who have spent way too many hours there, that they will recognize it.
I’m fairly convinced that video of Trump was pre-recorded yesterday in the White House and not in the hospital.
Based on?
1. Lack of any specifics about the days events and his treatment. It’s entirely generic. 2. Lack of IV or hospital wristband. 3. Would the hospital let a camera crew in with a covid patient? 4. References to “upstairs” like he’s in the White House and upstairs is well, upstairs. 5. The decor not matching any known photos of the presidential suite at said hospital.
🤷♂️
#5 has already been debunked (by a blue checkmark journalist on the twatter). The pictures recently circulated in the media of the suite are ones from 15 years ago and since has been changed.
It might have since been changed, but it’s still an odd backdrop for what is a hospital, especially if it was changed recently.
Early today they were reporting on the main news networks that it isn't actually just a hospital suite. It is a number of rooms, including an office, a dining room, a sitting room, etc.
That all been said, I have to say the background looks a lot like pictures in the white house. The thing is if they have done it in the White House, there are enough people who have spent way too many hours there, that they will recognize it.
You’re probably right to be honest. An interesting theory nonetheless though.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
It actually is and I think, in an ideal world, Philip’s view is right, it shouldn’t affect votes. However, it’s not that and there will be some voters who think like Justin (who also has the right to his views) and believe that a candidate that cheats on his spouse will screw the electorate.
Let’s put it another way, how many comments do we hear on here about “shagger” Johnson when people want to criticise him?
Let's put it another way, did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson getting the highest vote share of any party since 1979?
Did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson from wracking up a bigger vote share than Tony Blair ever achieved?
Nobody cares about shagging. The only people who bring it up are people who would dislike him anyway.
The UK is not the US. Religion hardly plays a role in UK politics but it’s an important factor in a number of US states.
There are two things here. What we think about personally and how then it impacts on the voting.
Personally, I said my view below. Politically, I think it will impact him, particularly with older Black American voters who are Democrat but also deeply religious, which is a crucial Democrat voting bloc in places like NC. They won’t vote for Tillis but they might feel they can’t vote for Cunningham nkw
While that's true, the statistics on the growing number of irreligious folk should should terrify the living daylights out of the Religious Right.
I’m fairly convinced that video of Trump was pre-recorded yesterday in the White House and not in the hospital.
Sad to see you flirt with conspiracy theories.
I'm also not convinced by this - the debunking upthread seems persuasive - but these people definitely lie all the time and without hesitation, so at this point it's not sensible to give them the benefit of the doubt. If somebody is constantly engaged in conspiracies, you can't hope to understand what's going on without making theories about their conspiracies.
"starch your white shirt" . . . how dare someone use language like that. Burn the witch! 🔥
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
I’m actually with you. What two people do in their private lives is up to them and it wouldn’t affect my vote.
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
I think it's rather sweet in this day and age.
It actually is and I think, in an ideal world, Philip’s view is right, it shouldn’t affect votes. However, it’s not that and there will be some voters who think like Justin (who also has the right to his views) and believe that a candidate that cheats on his spouse will screw the electorate.
Let’s put it another way, how many comments do we hear on here about “shagger” Johnson when people want to criticise him?
Let's put it another way, did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson getting the highest vote share of any party since 1979?
Did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson from wracking up a bigger vote share than Tony Blair ever achieved?
Nobody cares about shagging. The only people who bring it up are people who would dislike him anyway.
Comments
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1312525833505058816?s=21
He sounds like a human being.
I think it was Casino who wondered how he'd be polling based on what he has done rather than how he's behaved.
He's polling an average 8% behind which means excluding third parties we should expect a 46-54 split. As third parties are getting squeezed due to polarisation coming up to the election it makes sense that he can have bad polls even as his personal rating improves.
"Ada Beatrice Queen Victoria Louise Virginia Smith, better known as Bricktop"
A cabaret performer and owner of various nightclubs across the Western world in the period 1924 to the 1960s.
Discovered when spelunking the history of Josephine Baker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_"Bricktop"_Smith#:~:text=Ada Beatrice Queen Victoria Louise,in Mexico City and Rome.
https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/academics/research-at-suffolk/suprc/polls/other-states/2020/10_2_2020_tables_pdftxt.pdf?la=en&hash=092D976850EB75E3AD343E1F122E02FA8C57CEFC
Quite frankly the only thing we know is that we know nothing. As it stands either Labour or the Tories could win the next election. Either Johnson or Starmer could win it. Or A. N. Other Tory or Labour leader.
As it stands despite the pandemic neither any party nor any leader is pulling a major lead and all is to play for.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article246191610.html
Its extremely rare for Tory PMs to maintain poll leads.
Its hardly dick pics. And I wouldn't care if it was that. People need to get a life and stop caring about stupid nonsense like this.
So if you were American and around for JFK versus Nixon would you have voted for Nixon over the adulterer JFK?
However, not everyone thinks that way. Put it another way, I can’t imagine anyone who wasn’t voting for him is.m now voting for him because of those texts but a few may decide not to.
It’s a tight race. It doesn’t take that many votes to swing things
Anyone who lets something as inane as this affect their vote was looking for an excuse to change their vote already . . . so probably would have found something either way.
People ignore personal foibles when it comes to those they're willing to vote for, find a way to excuse it. I make a point of excusing it for everyone and never attacking anyone for this bullshit because I couldn't care less what happens in someone else's bedroom that's none of my business.
Let’s put it another way, how many comments do we hear on here about “shagger” Johnson when people want to criticise him?
That may have some impact on more conservative voters, but they’d be much more likely to be supporting his opponent anyway. Probably the worst impact is that it calls Cunningham’s honesty and integrity into question. It probably will damage him somewhat, but he has been consistently ahead of Tillis, sometimes well ahead, and Tillis has just been diagnosed with Covid so will not be able to campaign much for a while.
So I think this race still leans towards Cunningham, but it may mean the Ds will have to pump more resources in that they might have been intending to send elsewhere.
Morals, like religion, should belong to the individual, not the ballot box.
https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1312534750725201920?s=21
Did being a "shagger" prevent Johnson from wracking up a bigger vote share than Tony Blair ever achieved?
Nobody cares about shagging. The only people who bring it up are people who would dislike him anyway.
What does matter is that he is a white supremacist, science-denying, narcissistic, corrupt, fiscally irresponsible twunt.
There are two things here. What we think about personally and how then it impacts on the voting.
Personally, I said my view below. Politically, I think it will impact him, particularly with older Black American voters who are Democrat but also deeply religious, which is a crucial Democrat voting bloc in places like NC. They won’t vote for Tillis but they might feel they can’t vote for Cunningham nkw
Some of the greatest leaders the world has seen have had personal moral failings. So what, we're all human. The Greeks considered all their gods to have human failings too precisely for that, the idea that we should be perfect or beyond the pale is the most rank form of puritanical bullshit.
Many of America's Presidents including some of their greatest have been adulterers. Washington, FDR, Jefferson, JFK, Clinton and many more were all adulterers.
In WWII we were led by someone who liked his alcohol, the Americans were led by an adulterer, and the Germans were led by a vegetarian animal lover.
2. Lack of IV or hospital wristband.
3. Would the hospital let a camera crew in with a covid patient?
4. References to “upstairs” like he’s in the White House and upstairs is well, upstairs.
5. The decor not matching any known photos of the presidential suite at said hospital.
🤷♂️
Yes, absolutely.
#4, not sure about that either. Its the way he talks, I didn't take that that way at all. He says something like "people told me I should stay at the White House, stay upstairs".
That all been said, I have to say the white wood panelling background looks a lot like pictures in the white house. The thing is if they have done it in the White House, there are enough people who have spent way too many hours there, that they will recognize it.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1312563358244179969?s=20
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1312564824551768066?s=20
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/02/asia/trump-china-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html