Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
Labour and landslide. Two words I’ve not heard together in a while. My goodness if anyone has earned a good result she has. An impressive politician and a model for the left to follow.
Not with the spineless donkeys they have in this country
When was the year when you made your transition from Thatcherite Tory to Salmondite SNPer?
Well back into last century ( many generations for stupid Tories to understand ) and it was a single vote to get shot of the nutters / unions running Labour at that. A necessary evil at the time but has been extremely hard to live with the fact that I voted Tory once in my life.
This revelation has blown my mind.
You know, they say repeating the sin might make it weigh easier on the conscience..
That will never happen , unless of course if after independence we get a real centre Scottish Tory party with talent and ideas for Scotland.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
If you only give Biden those states where he has at least a 5% lead (according to 538), then he wins 278 to 260. Trump takes Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina but still loses.
If you ignore the Trafalgar Michigan poll yes, if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan then Trump wins 276 to 262. It would be the closest election since 2000 but Trump would be re elected
It's a truism in politics that the electorate don't do gratitude, and even a government with a good record has to convince the electorate that they're still the best choice for the future.
Ardern's victory shows that the electorate do show gratitude for dealing with Covid successfully. If, as I hope, US voters show us that there is an electoral price for Covid-related incompetence, then the combined lesson might be worth studying by European governments.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
Labour and landslide. Two words I’ve not heard together in a while. My goodness if anyone has earned a good result she has. An impressive politician and a model for the left to follow.
Is that a preview of the 2024 or 2028 UK general election? I wouldn’t be surprised if the greens grew in the UK. Once the sun sets on this administration, the Tories really need to split into a “new Conservative” party and the populist nationalist we have leading it today. They are two diametrically opposite ideologies.
The key counterfactual there is "What if Rory4London had gone somewhere?" There clearly is a gap in the market (though probably over-represented here) of not Socialist, but not populist-nationalist and unable to stomach the cronyism and incompetence that goes with it. Splitting the right would mean the right lost, but seeing what this right winning looks like, that might be a necessary price to pay. Like the SDP's weakening of Labour in 1983.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
If you only give Biden those states where he has at least a 5% lead (according to 538), then he wins 278 to 260. Trump takes Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina but still loses.
No vaccine before the election and cases rising . Trumps worst nightmare and the more he goes round saying they’ve turned the corner the more he looks detached from reality.
Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
Labour and landslide. Two words I’ve not heard together in a while. My goodness if anyone has earned a good result she has. An impressive politician and a model for the left to follow.
Is that a preview of the 2024 or 2028 UK general election? I wouldn’t be surprised if the greens grew in the UK. Once the sun sets on this administration, the Tories really need to split into a “new Conservative” party and the populist nationalist we have leading it today. They are two diametrically opposite ideologies.
The key counterfactual there is "What if Rory4London had gone somewhere? There clearly is a gap in the market (though probably over-represented here) of not Socialist, but not populist-nationalist and unable to stomach the cronyism and incompetence that goes with it. Splitting the right would mean the right lost, but seeing what this right winning looks like, that might be a necessary price to pay. Like the SDP's weakening of Labiur in 1983.
The cockroach like Conservative Party always survives.
Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
Labour and landslide. Two words I’ve not heard together in a while. My goodness if anyone has earned a good result she has. An impressive politician and a model for the left to follow.
Is that a preview of the 2024 or 2028 UK general election? I wouldn’t be surprised if the greens grew in the UK. Once the sun sets on this administration, the Tories really need to split into a “new Conservative” party and the populist nationalist we have leading it today. They are two diametrically opposite ideologies.
The key counterfactual there is "What if Rory4London had gone somewhere? There clearly is a gap in the market (though probably over-represented here) of not Socialist, but not populist-nationalist and unable to stomach the cronyism and incompetence that goes with it. Splitting the right would mean the right lost, but seeing what this right winning looks like, that might be a necessary price to pay. Like the SDP's weakening of Labiur in 1983.
The fact that it's a counterfactual not a factual tells us something though, doesn't it? There just doesn't seem to be much of a market for free-market conservatism, and empirically, populist-nationalist voters don't seem to care at all about cronyism and incompetence, or if they do there's nothing that will make them believe it's happening when they see it. Conservatism isn't failing for lack of plausible politicians - the voters just aren't into it.
It's a truism in politics that the electorate don't do gratitude, and even a government with a good record has to convince the electorate that they're still the best choice for the future.
Ardern's victory shows that the electorate do show gratitude for dealing with Covid successfully. If, as I hope, US voters show us that there is an electoral price for Covid-related incompetence, then the combined lesson might be worth studying by European governments.
Though as Collins has said after congratulating Adern New Zealand is now in recession and the IMF forecasts could be in a worse economic situation than other comparator nations in 5 years time, the US is in a stronger economic position than New Zealand is most likely but that is the tradeoff that has to be made between containing Covid cases and deaths and protecting the economy.
Adern did well on the former, though helped also by New Zealand's isolation but the verdict is still out on the long term economic impact of her tourism ban for example
@HYUFD is your betting strategy to use the number from any pollster that is the worst for Biden? It could work, but I just need to understand for betting purposes.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Well lets just agree to disagree and say , I bet you he has a lot more cash than you or I and will have assets in millions, pension in millions and unlimited £320 (index linked ) a day and subsidised food "for life" in the HOL. Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.
Boris’ track record of winning elections speaks for itself. He is good at it.
It’s a shame that is as far as it goes. Not only is he impressively incompetent in office, he seems to actively resent having to do the job he was elected to.
Government is such a bore, he’d much rather play the election game, play to the crowd and try to fill some hole in his psyche.
I think this is right. It is why I think Boris will go within a year or two.
He just wants to be able to say "we got Brexit done" or "we had a world beater against Covid" in his boosterish way.
And then he will go. Leaving a god-almighty mess for the next PM.
I seldom agree with you, but your analysis of Johnson seems accurate to me.
In the ONS survey yesterday they estimated Covid prevalence at 0.6% in England, 0.4% in Northern Ireland and 0.2% in Wales (no figures for Scotland).
Although testing is better now it is important to remember that positive test numbers do not have a 1:1 relationship with the real level of infection that is present.
So, Covid is out of control, the oven-ready Brexit deal is inedible, another scandal is confirmed in the press and BoZo's chum across the water is heading for defeat.
What cunning plan does he have to restore his fortunes?
@HYUFD is your betting strategy to use the number from any pollster that is the worst for Biden? It could work, but I just need to understand for betting purposes.
There is no point betting on Biden at the moment as he is such a strong favourite and you would barely win anything unless you have vast sums to bet on which I don't, I only bet small amounts on longshots which could come off like the current Trump to narrowly win the EC bet, that is all
Boris’ track record of winning elections speaks for itself. He is good at it.
It’s a shame that is as far as it goes. Not only is he impressively incompetent in office, he seems to actively resent having to do the job he was elected to.
Government is such a bore, he’d much rather play the election game, play to the crowd and try to fill some hole in his psyche.
I think this is right. It is why I think Boris will go within a year or two.
He just wants to be able to say "we got Brexit done" or "we had a world beater against Covid" in his boosterish way.
And then he will go. Leaving a god-almighty mess for the next PM.
I seldom agree with you, but your analysis of Johnson seems accurate to me.
I was under the impression we agreed about most things, actually.
Err... surely that should read "... UP TO £3000 support" rather than "... £3000 support"?
Check with @Cyclefree for details. She become very animated about it the other night.
I did. It is up to £3000. The amount you get depends on rateable value. Most places will get far less than that and such an amount will not cover a month’s fixed costs. This support is no such thing. Every single business in Tier 2 or 3 will be operating at a loss unless they cut costs. And guess which costs are easiest to cut?
Worth noting that those businesses in the supply chain - breweries, for instance, aren’t even eligible for this little help. Daughter got a sad email from one such Lancashire brewery reminding her that they were still open and could they supply etc, they would even deliver quarter barrels (not something they would normally do) etc.
And remember also that the directors of such places also have a legal obligation not to trade while insolvent. So unless the government provides proper support, pretty soon plenty of places will be forced to close.
That is as a result of a political choice by the government to abandon one of the biggest industries this country has.
That is the point Starmer should be making and his Shadow Chancellor and which Burnham has, to some extent been making.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Starmer earned a six figure salary at the DPP, in asset terms he is a millionaire, even if he did not earn a million a year as some city firm partners and commercial QCs do
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
And yet I bet people believe differently in those areas nevertheless. So much of the arguments between the nations about precise details seems so trivial.
I think Mr Herdson's header is a bit harsh on Starmer, although it makes some fair points.
However, I think he gets it completely wrong when he writes: He could, and should, have been vocal about the refusal to extend the Brexit transitional period when the Covid Crisis took so much time away from governments’ attentions.
Now, of course most sane people think that it would have been sensible to put the next stage of Brexit on the backburner while dealing with this awful virus crisis - for both ours and the EU's sake. That sort of goes without saying. But if Starmer had argued strongly for extending the transition, I'm in absolutely no doubt that the Tories, the tabloids, and many on here would have been howling from the rooftops: here he goes again, Starmer's trying to stop and then reverse Brexit.
Starmer's been spot on on Brexit; saying to the government, you were elected on Get Brexit Done with an Oven Ready Deal, so just get it over with. Let the government own the mess that is forthcoming.
It's a truism in politics that the electorate don't do gratitude, and even a government with a good record has to convince the electorate that they're still the best choice for the future.
Ardern's victory shows that the electorate do show gratitude for dealing with Covid successfully. If, as I hope, US voters show us that there is an electoral price for Covid-related incompetence, then the combined lesson might be worth studying by European governments.
Though as Collins has said after congratulating Adern New Zealand is now in recession and the IMF forecasts could be in a worse economic situation than other comparator nations in 5 years time, the US is in a stronger economic position than New Zealand is most likely but that is the tradeoff that has to be made between containing Covid cases and deaths and protecting the economy.
Adern did well on the former, though helped also by New Zealand's isolation but the verdict is still out on the long term economic impact of her tourism ban for example
A better comparison economically for New Zealand might be with, say, Ireland, another island nation with a similar population and reliance on dairy farming and tourism.
My guess is that 2021 will be better economically for NZ than Ireland. They'll have more fun this Christmas in NZ too.
Mr. (Miss?) Rose, we're a densely populated island nation. New Zealand is sparsely populated. We're within swimming distance of the nearest continent. They are thousands of miles away.
Pointing out facts regarding the wildly different demographics and location of the United Kingdom and New Zealand is not bleating. It's useful and relevant information.
Unless you're using an a posteriori approach and have already determined the conclusion you desire.
Look at the video feeds or news coverage of the New Zealand election. No masks, no social distancing. Labour landslide. It looks like Britain in 1997.
New Zealand is one of the most isolated nations and least densely populated nations on earth, basically Wales stuck thousands of miles from anywhere in the south Pacific.
It is a totally different case from the UK which is one of the most densely populated nations on earth and of course Ardern effectively banned all tourism to New Zealand during lockdown making it even more isolated, it has also gone into recession now though clearly New Zealanders overall feel Arden did a good enough job containing Covid to be re elected and given a chance to continue for a second term
Ardern (or New Zealand) eliminated Covid-19, not just "did a good job". We could seek to learn from New Zealand (or from Japan, South Korea or even Germany) or we could simply dismiss them as irrelevant. New Zealand may be sparsely populated (a nebulous concept in itself, as averaging over urban and rural parts can be misleading). South Korea and Japan are populated by mindless automatons who wear masks at the drop of a hat and positively welcome government surveillance, unlike Britons who rose up against the tyranny of having more cctv cameras than anywhere else.
Britain has nothing to learn about masks, contact tracing, restricting flights and monitoring new arrivals. That's what's landed us here.
Back on-topic. Jacinda Ardern is a cautious, middle-of-the-road politician who does still have time for experts. Ardern, Biden, Starmer: is there a trend?
Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
Labour and landslide. Two words I’ve not heard together in a while. My goodness if anyone has earned a good result she has. An impressive politician and a model for the left to follow.
Is that a preview of the 2024 or 2028 UK general election? I wouldn’t be surprised if the greens grew in the UK. Once the sun sets on this administration, the Tories really need to split into a “new Conservative” party and the populist nationalist we have leading it today. They are two diametrically opposite ideologies.
The key counterfactual there is "What if Rory4London had gone somewhere?" There clearly is a gap in the market (though probably over-represented here) of not Socialist, but not populist-nationalist and unable to stomach the cronyism and incompetence that goes with it. Splitting the right would mean the right lost, but seeing what this right winning looks like, that might be a necessary price to pay. Like the SDP's weakening of Labour in 1983.
The right would never split fully unless we had PR, New Zealand does hence while the centre-right Nationals are on 27% tonight once you add the 8% for the Libertarian ACT and the 2% for the populist-nationalist New Zealand First the combined right is on 37%.
On the left there is also the split between Labour and the Greens
Summary: Lockdowns do not work - they just cause chaos.
Depends on what you mean by "work".
If "work" = "short term deferment of cases which return when lockdown ends" then I suspect they do.
What we need to do is "learn to live" with COVID - and there are models in Asia of how this can work - Masks, distancing, control of borders - which the UK has been woeful at (but not all of the British Isles).
On the US election, too many people think we are living through a re-run of 2016, when the evidence suggests the election dynamics are completely different.
Rather than argue with those who cherry pick polls to fit their biases or to 2016, it's easiest to just continue to take their money on Betfair. The drift in odds over the last day makes it all the more tempting!
I'll give a notable mention to MrEd who brings some more interesting analysis to the 'how Trump could win case', even if it doesn't convince me that Biden is exceptionally good value.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Starmer earned a six figure salary at the DPP, in asset terms he is a millionaire, even if he did not earn a million a year as some city firm partners and commercial QCs do
I think I agree with MalcolmG.
Starmer is not rich by the standards of a successful, London member of the professional classes. I accept he could have made much more money than he did.
But, he is very rich by the standards of most of the rest of the UK.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
Based on what? Trafalgar were exposed yesterday as charlatans by Robert so disregarding their polls completely what evidence are you working from?
They were the only pollster to forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 correctly using their methodology, every other pollster wrongly had Hillary comfortably ahead in both states, so to disregard their polls completely is absurd
I have a stopped clock here. It tells the correct time twice a day... that makes it twice as good as your precious Trafalgar
Your point is..?
I know most people on here are forecasting a Biden landslide, a few of us like myself and Mr Ed disagree, we will see who is right on election night.
Biden is certainly no Obama or Jacinda Ardern, in the US the energy is still with the Trump campaign
Most people seem to be predicting a Biden win not a landslide, do you might need to adjust your claim when you seek to crow about it
Its like I said, should Trump win there'll be much pretending that no one considered it possible except a noble few.
I have no idea if Trump will win or not, but Biden does not inspire me with confidence. If Biden does win, I think we will get President Harris before the 4 years are up.
Mr. (Miss?) Rose, we're a densely populated island nation. New Zealand is sparsely populated. We're within swimming distance of the nearest continent. They are thousands of miles away.
Pointing out facts regarding the wildly different demographics and location of the United Kingdom and New Zealand is not bleating. It's useful and relevant information.
Unless you're using an a posteriori approach and have already determined the conclusion you desire.
Look at the video feeds or news coverage of the New Zealand election. No masks, no social distancing. Labour landslide. It looks like Britain in 1997.
New Zealand is one of the most isolated nations and least densely populated nations on earth, basically Wales stuck thousands of miles from anywhere in the south Pacific.
It is a totally different case from the UK which is one of the most densely populated nations on earth and of course Ardern effectively banned all tourism to New Zealand during lockdown making it even more isolated, it has also gone into recession now though clearly New Zealanders overall feel Arden did a good enough job containing Covid to be re elected and given a chance to continue for a second term
Ardern (or New Zealand) eliminated Covid-19, not just "did a good job". We could seek to learn from New Zealand (or from Japan, South Korea or even Germany) or we could simply dismiss them as irrelevant. New Zealand may be sparsely populated (a nebulous concept in itself, as averaging over urban and rural parts can be misleading). South Korea and Japan are populated by mindless automatons who wear masks at the drop of a hat and positively welcome government surveillance, unlike Britons who rose up against the tyranny of having more cctv cameras than anywhere else.
Britain has nothing to learn about masks, contact tracing, restricting flights and monitoring new arrivals. That's what's landed us here.
Back on-topic. Jacinda Ardern is a cautious, middle-of-the-road politician who does still have time for experts. Ardern, Biden, Starmer: is there a trend?
Ardern has charisma after a succession of boring New Zealand Labour leaders who lost, that is a key factor, neither Biden nor Starmer have a great deal of charisma.
Yes, we can learn something from New Zealand but South Korea is a better example as closer to the UK and has contained Covid cases like New Zealand with less economic damage
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
If you only give Biden those states where he has at least a 5% lead (according to 538), then he wins 278 to 260. Trump takes Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina but still loses.
If you ignore the Trafalgar Michigan poll yes, if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan then Trump wins 276 to 262. It would be the closest election since 2000 but Trump would be re elected
So you are pinning your hopes on that one Trafalgar Michigan poll? I see.
How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
To answer your question, for the same reason that a great number of people living in London have assets worth over a million. Namely, that house prices in London and its surrounds went up over his lifetime. By quite a lot in fact.
Boris’ track record of winning elections speaks for itself. He is good at it.
It’s a shame that is as far as it goes. Not only is he impressively incompetent in office, he seems to actively resent having to do the job he was elected to.
Government is such a bore, he’d much rather play the election game, play to the crowd and try to fill some hole in his psyche.
I think this is right. It is why I think Boris will go within a year or two.
He just wants to be able to say "we got Brexit done" or "we had a world beater against Covid" in his boosterish way.
And then he will go. Leaving a god-almighty mess for the next PM.
I seldom agree with you, but your analysis of Johnson seems accurate to me.
I was under the impression we agreed about most things, actually.
On New Zealand, there weren't too many substantive policy differences between Labour and National - both pledged free trade deals with the UK and EU, for example - so the campaign was mainly about competence and leadership. Ardern has a big advantage due to her elimination of Covid-19, and she's been duly rewarded.
The only significant difference is that she is the Queen of Woke, which has got her a lot of youth votes, and she has policies like gender neutral bathrooms in all schools. Her economic platform isn't particularly left-wing.
It's the former that's now far more important to millennials in voting than the latter, which they're not particularly interested in as long as they can buy a house and otherwise feel good about themselves.
In the ONS survey yesterday they estimated Covid prevalence at 0.6% in England, 0.4% in Northern Ireland and 0.2% in Wales (no figures for Scotland).
Although testing is better now it is important to remember that positive test numbers do not have a 1:1 relationship with the real level of infection that is present.
On the ONS figures it's not the same.
So it was indeed Tory facts, ie a load of made up bollox lies for which Carlotta is very famous. CCHQ's top Lady Haw Haw strikes again.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
If you only give Biden those states where he has at least a 5% lead (according to 538), then he wins 278 to 260. Trump takes Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina but still loses.
If you ignore the Trafalgar Michigan poll yes, if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan then Trump wins 276 to 262. It would be the closest election since 2000 but Trump would be re elected
So you are pinning your hopes on that one Trafalgar Michigan poll? I see.
Yes, he is. Despite the rest of us pointing out how stupid this is as a strategy for prediction. He also conveniently ingores the well argued points in the header yesterday evening.
I see Swedish students are causing outbreaks, and regional governments given new powers to restrict activities. Meanwhile, WFH is government policy, and daily case numbers have been steadily rising since early September:
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I think he will be another Cameron , empty PR suit following focus groups, ie useless.
And yet I bet people believe differently in those areas nevertheless. So much of the arguments between the nations about precise details seems so trivial.
Summary: Lockdowns do not work - they just cause chaos.
Depends on what you mean by "work".
If "work" = "short term deferment of cases which return when lockdown ends" then I suspect they do.
What we need to do is "learn to live" with COVID - and there are models in Asia of how this can work - Masks, distancing, control of borders - which the UK has been woeful at (but not all of the British Isles).
The problem is the Government still hasn't stated its objectives, as far as i can tell, behind the Tier measures. Why did London get classified as "Tier 2" and how does it escape it?
Freedland: if Americans repudiate Trump, that would suggest the reassertion of a political rule that seemed to have been shredded in 2016: that there are some things voters will not tolerate. That incompetence, corruption and dishonesty exact a price. The restoration of that standard would not be kind to Johnson. And a defeated Trump would rob the prime minister of what has been a useful, if largely unspoken, argument: no matter how bad Johnson has been, no matter how inept his handling of the pandemic, at least he’s not been as awful as that man in the White House. If Trump is beaten, that handy comparator will become unavailable – along with the relative reassurance it provided
Spain also now has more deaths per head than the UK, as does Belgium, Peru, Brazil etc not just the US and France now has had more cases than the UK too
Has Trafalgar made any study of the UK's Covid performance?
Mr. (Miss?) Rose, we're a densely populated island nation. New Zealand is sparsely populated. We're within swimming distance of the nearest continent. They are thousands of miles away.
Pointing out facts regarding the wildly different demographics and location of the United Kingdom and New Zealand is not bleating. It's useful and relevant information.
Unless you're using an a posteriori approach and have already determined the conclusion you desire.
Look at the video feeds or news coverage of the New Zealand election. No masks, no social distancing. Labour landslide. It looks like Britain in 1997.
New Zealand is one of the most isolated nations and least densely populated nations on earth, basically Wales stuck thousands of miles from anywhere in the south Pacific.
It is a totally different case from the UK which is one of the most densely populated nations on earth and of course Ardern effectively banned all tourism to New Zealand during lockdown making it even more isolated, it has also gone into recession now though clearly New Zealanders overall feel Arden did a good enough job containing Covid to be re elected and given a chance to continue for a second term
Ardern (or New Zealand) eliminated Covid-19, not just "did a good job". We could seek to learn from New Zealand (or from Japan, South Korea or even Germany) or we could simply dismiss them as irrelevant. New Zealand may be sparsely populated (a nebulous concept in itself, as averaging over urban and rural parts can be misleading). South Korea and Japan are populated by mindless automatons who wear masks at the drop of a hat and positively welcome government surveillance, unlike Britons who rose up against the tyranny of having more cctv cameras than anywhere else.
Britain has nothing to learn about masks, contact tracing, restricting flights and monitoring new arrivals. That's what's landed us here.
Back on-topic. Jacinda Ardern is a cautious, middle-of-the-road politician who does still have time for experts. Ardern, Biden, Starmer: is there a trend?
Politics in all Western nations tends to go through cycles. But they are different cycles. The "Left" was in power in the USA from 2008-2016, whilst the "Right" was in the UK from 2010 onwards. The "Right" was in power in Canada from 2006-2015, when it was chucked out for Trudeau. Ardern has done well, but the "Right" is still in power in Australia.
I think it's odds-on, at present, that the Conservatives will lose in 2024 but we should be cautious of drawing lazy causations from apparent correlations.
Mr. (Miss?) Rose, we're a densely populated island nation. New Zealand is sparsely populated. We're within swimming distance of the nearest continent. They are thousands of miles away.
Pointing out facts regarding the wildly different demographics and location of the United Kingdom and New Zealand is not bleating. It's useful and relevant information.
Unless you're using an a posteriori approach and have already determined the conclusion you desire.
Look at the video feeds or news coverage of the New Zealand election. No masks, no social distancing. Labour landslide. It looks like Britain in 1997.
New Zealand is one of the most isolated nations and least densely populated nations on earth, basically Wales stuck thousands of miles from anywhere in the south Pacific.
It is a totally different case from the UK which is one of the most densely populated nations on earth and of course Ardern effectively banned all tourism to New Zealand during lockdown making it even more isolated, it has also gone into recession now though clearly New Zealanders overall feel Arden did a good enough job containing Covid to be re elected and given a chance to continue for a second term
Ardern (or New Zealand) eliminated Covid-19, not just "did a good job". We could seek to learn from New Zealand (or from Japan, South Korea or even Germany) or we could simply dismiss them as irrelevant. New Zealand may be sparsely populated (a nebulous concept in itself, as averaging over urban and rural parts can be misleading). South Korea and Japan are populated by mindless automatons who wear masks at the drop of a hat and positively welcome government surveillance, unlike Britons who rose up against the tyranny of having more cctv cameras than anywhere else.
Britain has nothing to learn about masks, contact tracing, restricting flights and monitoring new arrivals. That's what's landed us here.
Back on-topic. Jacinda Ardern is a cautious, middle-of-the-road politician who does still have time for experts. Ardern, Biden, Starmer: is there a trend?
Ardern has charisma after a succession of boring New Zealand Labour leaders who lost, that is a key factor, neither Biden nor Starmer have a great deal of charisma.
Yes, we can learn something from New Zealand but South Korea is a better example as closer to the UK and has contained Covid cases like New Zealand with less economic damage
"South Korea is a better example as closer to the UK" but is not close at all. In fact every country except for a few very small islands is close to the UK than New Zealand. Brazil is closer than NZ to the UK, but not many people are claiming that we should be using Brazil as a guiding example to the Covid Pandemic.
@HYUFD is your betting strategy to use the number from any pollster that is the worst for Biden? It could work, but I just need to understand for betting purposes.
If you cast your mind back to last year and a Yougov poll that HYUFD kept banging on about for werks whilst the rest of us just laughed. It and HY turned out to be bang-on come December.
I've friends in New Zealand. They run naked around the fields: that's a metaphor by the way
Total freedom. No masks. No fear.
And for those who bleat that New Zealand has only 4.5 m people, it's just a question of scale. We're an island and so are they. We could have done it.
It's laughable that Herdson criticises Sir Keir for the very thing that so bedevils Johnson: dithering, vacillating, rudderless, incompetence on a scale not seen in this country for over a century. Jeez, Boris has made Theresa May look like Maggie.
I'm assuming to do that we would have had to introduce draconian measures in February including quarantine of all half term visitors to Italy. It may be New Zealand has got it right particularly if an effective vaccine becomes available soon or it may be they have pushed the problem down the road. We shall see.
The UK's handling of borders has been shambolic - I blame Shapps who persuaded Cabinet that Patel's "quarantine arrivers" would be "bad for business". Initial arrivals from China were quarantined - then they just let it rip. You don't have to look as far as New Zealand to see how it can be done - both Guernsey and the Isle of Man have controlled their borders and fined/imprisoned quarantine breakers - neither have in community transmission and no social distancing or mask wearing.
Dear dear that old chesnut again, empty barren islands with grass airfields don't get much covid shock. Densely populated countries with huge world travel hubs do shocker. You could not make it up. Try looking at the empty parts of UK, shocker they have almost NO covid.
The population density of Guernsey is 995/sq km - Scotland 65 sq/km. But Nats & Facts eh?
Not to mention Britnats and facts. The pop density of Scotland is intensely disparate - look at the map. Even in the Borders it's a huge difference between a Hawick cooncil housing estate and 99% of trhe rest.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
If you only give Biden those states where he has at least a 5% lead (according to 538), then he wins 278 to 260. Trump takes Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina but still loses.
If you ignore the Trafalgar Michigan poll yes, if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan then Trump wins 276 to 262. It would be the closest election since 2000 but Trump would be re elected
if you assume that Biden loses all seats where he has less than 5% lead AND Trafalgar are right on Michigan...
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Starmer earned a six figure salary at the DPP, in asset terms he is a millionaire, even if he did not earn a million a year as some city firm partners and commercial QCs do
I think I agree with MalcolmG.
Starmer is not rich by the standards of a successful, London member of the professional classes. I accept he could have made much more money than he did.
But, he is very rich by the standards of most of the rest of the UK.
Yes and not many of us have the opportunity to top up our pensions by almost 2 grand a week by just turning up to HOL for a heavily subsidised lunch.
On the US election, too many people think we are living through a re-run of 2016, when the evidence suggests the election dynamics are completely different.
Rather than argue with those who cherry pick polls to fit their biases or to 2016, it's easiest to just continue to take their money on Betfair. The drift in odds over the last day makes it all the more tempting!
I'll give a notable mention to MrEd who brings some more interesting analysis to the 'how Trump could win case', even if it doesn't convince me that Biden is exceptionally good value.
"some" being the correct word. But you have to read through a lot of clutched straws to get to the few instances of "interesting analysis".
Indeed there are remarkable similarities between the emptiness of Starmer and Theresa May who with Brexit avoided taking a side and allowed others to define things in her absence.
Of course Starmer isn't PM so isn't having to win meaningful votes but if his vacillating continues it would be interesting to see if his polling is a mirage as May's was in 2017 once finally put to the test.
Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
Labour and landslide. Two words I’ve not heard together in a while. My goodness if anyone has earned a good result she has. An impressive politician and a model for the left to follow.
Not with the spineless donkeys they have in this country
When was the year when you made your transition from Thatcherite Tory to Salmondite SNPer?
Well back into last century ( many generations for stupid Tories to understand ) and it was a single vote to get shot of the nutters / unions running Labour at that. A necessary evil at the time but has been extremely hard to live with the fact that I voted Tory once in my life.
This revelation has blown my mind.
You know, they say repeating the sin might make it weigh easier on the conscience..
But you know what they also say about preparing the fatted calf for the prodigal son, as a metaphor for the sinner that repenteth.
Don't forget that Malcy and I go back to the days when the realistic choice was between Labour and Tory MPs in FPTP, occasionally permed with a LD or SNP person. And given the quality of certain candidates ...
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
That's more than dubious. If he has become a millionare it'd have to have been through working as a charity's legal officer (salary currently circa £30k per annum), then in mostly Legal Aid cases at the bar (standard fees currently about £250 per hour), and then as DPP (salary roughly £225k p.a.). There are be a lot of people in the legal profession who would be interested to know, Malc, how that would lead him to be a millionaire. Can you let me know as I appear to have made some catastrophic career choces in that respect. He's certainly not rich via his nurse mother and toolmaker father.
Starmer could have become a millionaire, easily, by going into a far more remunerative areas of law, like tax or Chancery, or by joining a Magic Circle firm. He didn't. Indeed he acted in the McLibel claim for free - which cost him a lot of money and took a lot of guts. He may well have saved a million in assets (his house looks very nice) and thus technically be a millionaire but he's not, by current standards, at all rich.
I'd given up on the Labour Party but Starmer MIGHT tempt me back. We'll see how it goes. Long time to make my mind up.
You do not need a lot of years at that kind of money to be a millionaire. At the top the legal profession make huge money, admittedly they tend to make it on the sweat of the lawyers and para legals at the bottom of the pile. For sure there are many many rich lawyers. I bet he never has to worry about cash, mind you I don't myself , but like all Labour grandeees will do little for the working class other than fleece them of fees. They talk about the workers but always end up millionaires in the HOL sucking at the public teat, at least the Tories are honest about being greedy uncaring barstewards. A choice between Labour and Tories is a bit like choosing which leg to cut off.
Nice rant. Ends with a nice point about the Tories. Doesn’t address the point I was making though. Namely that you were talking bollocks about Starmer. How does a lawyer who spent most of his career working at Legal Aid rates or lower, then relatively briefly (only five years) at the DPP, on a salary that would put his take home near bottom of equity at most City Law Firms, end up a millionaire?
Starmer earned a six figure salary at the DPP, in asset terms he is a millionaire, even if he did not earn a million a year as some city firm partners and commercial QCs do
According to the 'Senior officials 'high earners' salaries 2010' website, Starmer was on just under £200,000 as DPP. Obviously there would be pension rights associated with that, but he wasn't in the job that long, so there wouldn't be a lot there. He didn't qualify as a barrister until he was 25 or so, and he probably didn't earn much in his first few years at the bar; as has been pointed. out he wasn't in a high-paying area of practice and he did a lot of pro-bono work as well. His wife doesn't appear to be a high earner, either.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
If you only give Biden those states where he has at least a 5% lead (according to 538), then he wins 278 to 260. Trump takes Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina but still loses.
If you ignore the Trafalgar Michigan poll yes, if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan then Trump wins 276 to 262. It would be the closest election since 2000 but Trump would be re elected
if you assume that Biden loses all seats where he has less than 5% lead AND Trafalgar are right on Michigan...
You are talking average poll lead, at least 1 poll has had Trump ahead in all those states where Biden's average lead is less than 5%.
Hillary of course led most swing state average polls in 2016 too
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
Based on what? Trafalgar were exposed yesterday as charlatans by Robert so disregarding their polls completely what evidence are you working from?
The surge seems to have abated and Biden's price has settled around 1.58. It's way way too high, unless you believe in Trafalgar - in which case, good luck mate, I'll meet you back here later on planet Earth, some time around November 4th.
PB Tory criticism of Starmer seems to be he should be better than he is. The reality, though, is that you only need to be better than who you are up against - as long as you keep your party in line. This is where I think David has his strongest point. Starmer has to ensure that the predictable groans and criticisms from the far-left remain there and do not spread beyond that. Too much abstaining is not a good look. There were legitimate, considered grounds to abstain on the Security Bill. There are no good reasons to do so on the one relating to immunity for the armed forces. Let’s see what happens there.
A typically PB reductionist reply. It isn't just about who wins an election: a successful premiership is more likely to spring from "He's fought our corner for the past 4 years and been right about all the important things" than from "Not as shit as Johnson" votes.
But you always need to win the election first. That said, not being as shit as Johnson, who is unequivocally shit in every way, is a pretty good start!
Not at winning elections, he isn't.
Well he hasn't fought one yet as leader, so what a dull comment.
This time around, at least Labour won't be burdened with the leadership millstone that was Jeremy Corbyn.
Demonising Corbyn risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Corbyn flopped in 2019 but so did Ed Miliband in 2015. Common to both were directionless campaigns. That's the risk with Starmer and Labour must hope that by 2024 Labour rediscovers its raison d'etre.
@HYUFD is your betting strategy to use the number from any pollster that is the worst for Biden? It could work, but I just need to understand for betting purposes.
There is no point betting on Biden at the moment as he is such a strong favourite and you would barely win anything unless you have vast sums to bet on which I don't, I only bet small amounts on longshots which could come off like the current Trump to narrowly win the EC bet, that is all
Sure, agreed. But what's your actual projection? Are you now forecasting a Trump win (or just think that's the value bet)?
I've friends in New Zealand. They run naked around the fields: that's a metaphor by the way
Total freedom. No masks. No fear.
And for those who bleat that New Zealand has only 4.5 m people, it's just a question of scale. We're an island and so are they. We could have done it.
It's laughable that Herdson criticises Sir Keir for the very thing that so bedevils Johnson: dithering, vacillating, rudderless, incompetence on a scale not seen in this country for over a century. Jeez, Boris has made Theresa May look like Maggie.
I'm assuming to do that we would have had to introduce draconian measures in February including quarantine of all half term visitors to Italy. It may be New Zealand has got it right particularly if an effective vaccine becomes available soon or it may be they have pushed the problem down the road. We shall see.
The UK's handling of borders has been shambolic - I blame Shapps who persuaded Cabinet that Patel's "quarantine arrivers" would be "bad for business". Initial arrivals from China were quarantined - then they just let it rip. You don't have to look as far as New Zealand to see how it can be done - both Guernsey and the Isle of Man have controlled their borders and fined/imprisoned quarantine breakers - neither have in community transmission and no social distancing or mask wearing.
Dear dear that old chesnut again, empty barren islands with grass airfields don't get much covid shock. Densely populated countries with huge world travel hubs do shocker. You could not make it up. Try looking at the empty parts of UK, shocker they have almost NO covid.
The population density of Guernsey is 995/sq km - Scotland 65 sq/km. But Nats & Facts eh?
Not to mention Britnats and facts. The pop density of Scotland is intensely disparate - look at the map. Even in the Borders it's a huge difference between a Hawick cooncil housing estate and 99% of trhe rest.
Usual Tory facts , just lies wrapped up in horse manure and sprayed with eau de cologne. Central belt is more than 3000 / sq Km
In the ONS survey yesterday they estimated Covid prevalence at 0.6% in England, 0.4% in Northern Ireland and 0.2% in Wales (no figures for Scotland).
Although testing is better now it is important to remember that positive test numbers do not have a 1:1 relationship with the real level of infection that is present.
On the ONS figures it's not the same.
So it was indeed Tory facts, ie a load of made up bollox lies for which Carlotta is very famous. CCHQ's top Lady Haw Haw strikes again.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
Based on what? Trafalgar were exposed yesterday as charlatans by Robert so disregarding their polls completely what evidence are you working from?
They were the only pollster to forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 correctly using their methodology, every other pollster wrongly had Hillary comfortably ahead in both states, so to disregard their polls completely is absurd
They still go the vote share wrong though. They were right, but they were not accurate. Pollsters do not "forecast" states, they give a vote share and are judged on how accurate that is.
It's a truism in politics that the electorate don't do gratitude, and even a government with a good record has to convince the electorate that they're still the best choice for the future.
Ardern's victory shows that the electorate do show gratitude for dealing with Covid successfully. If, as I hope, US voters show us that there is an electoral price for Covid-related incompetence, then the combined lesson might be worth studying by European governments.
Though as Collins has said after congratulating Adern New Zealand is now in recession and the IMF forecasts could be in a worse economic situation than other comparator nations in 5 years time, the US is in a stronger economic position than New Zealand is most likely but that is the tradeoff that has to be made between containing Covid cases and deaths and protecting the economy.
Adern did well on the former, though helped also by New Zealand's isolation but the verdict is still out on the long term economic impact of her tourism ban for example
I expect compared to other destinations, Tourism in NZ do well once international tourism gets back on its feet. The problem for NZ is they only have agriculture and tourism, where as many other economies have more sectors to fall back on when others go tits up.
Good article, I'm giving Starmer benefit of the doubt for now.
David is I'm afraid quite wrong on the circuit breaker. It would have had a significant impact and will I suspect in a month or so be identified as a major opportunity missed.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
If you only give Biden those states where he has at least a 5% lead (according to 538), then he wins 278 to 260. Trump takes Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina but still loses.
If you ignore the Trafalgar Michigan poll yes, if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have Trump winning Michigan then Trump wins 276 to 262. It would be the closest election since 2000 but Trump would be re elected
if you assume that Biden loses all seats where he has less than 5% lead AND Trafalgar are right on Michigan...
You are talking average poll lead, at least 1 poll has had Trump ahead in all those states where Biden's average lead is less than 5%.
Hillary of course led most swing state average polls in 2016 too
So basically your approach is not "Trafalgar are the Gold Standard". It is "whichever pollster is most favourable (on as much as one isolated occasions) to Trump in any individual state is the Gold standard (in that particular state)?
Do you think any US pollsters have changed their methodology since 2016? What is your assessment of the impact of the changes any of them might have made?
@HYUFD is your betting strategy to use the number from any pollster that is the worst for Biden? It could work, but I just need to understand for betting purposes.
If you cast your mind back to last year and a Yougov poll that HYUFD kept banging on about for werks whilst the rest of us just laughed. It and HY turned out to be bang-on come December.
I am hoping lightning doesn't strike twice.
Yes, but he also thought it would be a Fillion/LePen 1/2 in the French Presidential election first round in face of all polling evidence and then bigged up Le Pen in round 2 when she was totally dominated by Macron.
Much like only picking Trafalgar polls where they got it right only bringing up predictions he got right makes them look a lot more accurate.
The things which stood out to me were that Starmer has never criticized the government for its lack of control on people entering the country and that Starmer didn't criticize the government for the UK's dependence on imported PPE.
He comes across as yet another globalist sociopath.
With a underlying theme of 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best'.
Fuck it, the market is on a "Trump good jag" and given that I think this is Biden high point of his polling I have cashed out enough to make my GOP liability zero. I will go back in on election night where I presume Trump will be odds on or something stupid.
I've friends in New Zealand. They run naked around the fields: that's a metaphor by the way
Total freedom. No masks. No fear.
And for those who bleat that New Zealand has only 4.5 m people, it's just a question of scale. We're an island and so are they. We could have done it.
It's laughable that Herdson criticises Sir Keir for the very thing that so bedevils Johnson: dithering, vacillating, rudderless, incompetence on a scale not seen in this country for over a century. Jeez, Boris has made Theresa May look like Maggie.
I'm assuming to do that we would have had to introduce draconian measures in February including quarantine of all half term visitors to Italy. It may be New Zealand has got it right particularly if an effective vaccine becomes available soon or it may be they have pushed the problem down the road. We shall see.
The UK's handling of borders has been shambolic - I blame Shapps who persuaded Cabinet that Patel's "quarantine arrivers" would be "bad for business". Initial arrivals from China were quarantined - then they just let it rip. You don't have to look as far as New Zealand to see how it can be done - both Guernsey and the Isle of Man have controlled their borders and fined/imprisoned quarantine breakers - neither have in community transmission and no social distancing or mask wearing.
Dear dear that old chesnut again, empty barren islands with grass airfields don't get much covid shock. Densely populated countries with huge world travel hubs do shocker. You could not make it up. Try looking at the empty parts of UK, shocker they have almost NO covid.
The population density of Guernsey is 995/sq km - Scotland 65 sq/km. But Nats & Facts eh?
Not to mention Britnats and facts. The pop density of Scotland is intensely disparate - look at the map. Even in the Borders it's a huge difference between a Hawick cooncil housing estate and 99% of trhe rest.
The population density of Guernsey is also very disparate - the point was that its not an "empty barren island" - which is what Malc claimed in his uncharacteristic defence of the UK government's shambolic border policy.
I think Mr Herdson's header is a bit harsh on Starmer, although it makes some fair points.
However, I think he gets it completely wrong when he writes: He could, and should, have been vocal about the refusal to extend the Brexit transitional period when the Covid Crisis took so much time away from governments’ attentions.
Now, of course most sane people think that it would have been sensible to put the next stage of Brexit on the backburner while dealing with this awful virus crisis - for both ours and the EU's sake. That sort of goes without saying. But if Starmer had argued strongly for extending the transition, I'm in absolutely no doubt that the Tories, the tabloids, and many on here would have been howling from the rooftops: here he goes again, Starmer's trying to stop and then reverse Brexit.
Starmer's been spot on on Brexit; saying to the government, you were elected on Get Brexit Done with an Oven Ready Deal, so just get it over with. Let the government own the mess that is forthcoming.
Reading the header, anyone would think that Starmer's favourability ratings were on a par with Miliband's. They're anything but. It's also very strange timing for a header arguing that Starmer should have taken the gloves off on Covid, given that he has now done just that in spades.
I think the thread is motivated by David's inability to come to terms with the reality of Brexit and Starmer's failure to commit Labour to rejoining the EU, which is basically what Johnson would want him to do.
For the moment, while Brexit is still a live issue prior to becoming a tangible reality in 2021, Starmer can sit it out and be sanguine about the fact that leavers who formerly voted Labour have yet to return to his camp in large numbers. But after that, the issue won't be about Brexit but about the terms of the UK's future engagement with the EU, something that will have moved down the political agenda. Starmer can argue that the relationship is too distant and needs to be renegotiated, an approach that quite a lot of Leave supporters might go along with while still keeping Remainers on board. Overall, in the future Starmer will be seeking to move the agenda back towards domestic policy in the wake of Covid, and keep open his ability to get a hearing on that from former working class Labour voters by not alienating them now on Brexit.
So I agree, Starmer is spot on with his approach for the reasons you set out, and is playing the long game.
Summary: Lockdowns do not work - they just cause chaos.
Depends on what you mean by "work".
If "work" = "short term deferment of cases which return when lockdown ends" then I suspect they do.
What we need to do is "learn to live" with COVID - and there are models in Asia of how this can work - Masks, distancing, control of borders - which the UK has been woeful at (but not all of the British Isles).
Pushing the caseload along a bit whilst trashing the economy is not part of my definition of "works"
But I agree that we will have to learn to live with Covid
I've friends in New Zealand. They run naked around the fields: that's a metaphor by the way
Total freedom. No masks. No fear.
And for those who bleat that New Zealand has only 4.5 m people, it's just a question of scale. We're an island and so are they. We could have done it.
It's laughable that Herdson criticises Sir Keir for the very thing that so bedevils Johnson: dithering, vacillating, rudderless, incompetence on a scale not seen in this country for over a century. Jeez, Boris has made Theresa May look like Maggie.
I'm assuming to do that we would have had to introduce draconian measures in February including quarantine of all half term visitors to Italy. It may be New Zealand has got it right particularly if an effective vaccine becomes available soon or it may be they have pushed the problem down the road. We shall see.
The UK's handling of borders has been shambolic - I blame Shapps who persuaded Cabinet that Patel's "quarantine arrivers" would be "bad for business". Initial arrivals from China were quarantined - then they just let it rip. You don't have to look as far as New Zealand to see how it can be done - both Guernsey and the Isle of Man have controlled their borders and fined/imprisoned quarantine breakers - neither have in community transmission and no social distancing or mask wearing.
Dear dear that old chesnut again, empty barren islands with grass airfields don't get much covid shock. Densely populated countries with huge world travel hubs do shocker. You could not make it up. Try looking at the empty parts of UK, shocker they have almost NO covid.
The population density of Guernsey is 995/sq km - Scotland 65 sq/km. But Nats & Facts eh?
Not to mention Britnats and facts. The pop density of Scotland is intensely disparate - look at the map. Even in the Borders it's a huge difference between a Hawick cooncil housing estate and 99% of trhe rest.
Usual Tory facts , just lies wrapped up in horse manure and sprayed with eau de cologne. Central belt is more than 3000 / sq Km
Sheep manure I think would be more approporiate - so much of it round here ... I must say in fairness I really don't see how to usefully comparte densities one way or another, especially because even a metric for population density wouldn't necessarily work. So many people end up going through the same choke points - e.g. the local high school or supermarket, or the X95 bus to Edinburgh.
In an uncertain world one thing is always certain:
The costs associated with building HS2, the high speed railway linking northern and southern England, have risen again.
The news comes less than two months after construction officially began.
Ministers have admitted an extra £800m is needed due to more asbestos being discovered and the complexities of bringing the railway into a new hub station at London Euston.
Earlier this year the government gave HS2 a revised budget of £98bn after previous costings became unrealistic.
Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
Labour and landslide. Two words I’ve not heard together in a while. My goodness if anyone has earned a good result she has. An impressive politician and a model for the left to follow.
Is that a preview of the 2024 or 2028 UK general election? I wouldn’t be surprised if the greens grew in the UK. Once the sun sets on this administration, the Tories really need to split into a “new Conservative” party and the populist nationalist we have leading it today. They are two diametrically opposite ideologies.
The key counterfactual there is "What if Rory4London had gone somewhere? There clearly is a gap in the market (though probably over-represented here) of not Socialist, but not populist-nationalist and unable to stomach the cronyism and incompetence that goes with it. Splitting the right would mean the right lost, but seeing what this right winning looks like, that might be a necessary price to pay. Like the SDP's weakening of Labiur in 1983.
The fact that it's a counterfactual not a factual tells us something though, doesn't it? There just doesn't seem to be much of a market for free-market conservatism, and empirically, populist-nationalist voters don't seem to care at all about cronyism and incompetence, or if they do there's nothing that will make them believe it's happening when they see it. Conservatism isn't failing for lack of plausible politicians - the voters just aren't into it.
It is not the public that rejected Rory. Those voters were all Conservative MPs who rejected free-market Conservatism in favour of cronyism and incompetence, not to mention Stalinist centralisation of power and purges of dissidents that go far beyond even the most apocalyptic warnings of what Corbyn might do.
@HYUFD is your betting strategy to use the number from any pollster that is the worst for Biden? It could work, but I just need to understand for betting purposes.
If you cast your mind back to last year and a Yougov poll that HYUFD kept banging on about for werks whilst the rest of us just laughed. It and HY turned out to be bang-on come December.
I am hoping lightning doesn't strike twice.
Yes, but he also thought it would be a Fillion/LePen 1/2 in the French Presidential election first round in face of all polling evidence and then bigged up Le Pen in round 2 when she was totally dominated by Macron.
Much like only picking Trafalgar polls where they got it right only bringing up predictions he got right makes them look a lot more accurate.
From memory, he spent the entireity of French election night telling us that Le Pen was winning.... if the French had been operating a different electoral system.
I've friends in New Zealand. They run naked around the fields: that's a metaphor by the way
Total freedom. No masks. No fear.
And for those who bleat that New Zealand has only 4.5 m people, it's just a question of scale. We're an island and so are they. We could have done it.
It's laughable that Herdson criticises Sir Keir for the very thing that so bedevils Johnson: dithering, vacillating, rudderless, incompetence on a scale not seen in this country for over a century. Jeez, Boris has made Theresa May look like Maggie.
I'm assuming to do that we would have had to introduce draconian measures in February including quarantine of all half term visitors to Italy. It may be New Zealand has got it right particularly if an effective vaccine becomes available soon or it may be they have pushed the problem down the road. We shall see.
The UK's handling of borders has been shambolic - I blame Shapps who persuaded Cabinet that Patel's "quarantine arrivers" would be "bad for business". Initial arrivals from China were quarantined - then they just let it rip. You don't have to look as far as New Zealand to see how it can be done - both Guernsey and the Isle of Man have controlled their borders and fined/imprisoned quarantine breakers - neither have in community transmission and no social distancing or mask wearing.
Dear dear that old chesnut again, empty barren islands with grass airfields don't get much covid shock. Densely populated countries with huge world travel hubs do shocker. You could not make it up. Try looking at the empty parts of UK, shocker they have almost NO covid.
The population density of Guernsey is 995/sq km - Scotland 65 sq/km. But Nats & Facts eh?
Not to mention Britnats and facts. The pop density of Scotland is intensely disparate - look at the map. Even in the Borders it's a huge difference between a Hawick cooncil housing estate and 99% of trhe rest.
The population density of Guernsey is also very disparate - the point was that its not an "empty barren island" - which is what Malc claimed in his uncharacteristic defence of the UK government's shambolic border policy.
I can well imagine that. But it's on a different scale, and scale effects matter too. I really don't, as I said to Malcy just now, see how one can usefully compare one way or another.
On topic, I find it odd that Starmer is abstaining on Covert Human Intelligence Bill, which is unacceptable in its scope and the range of bodies to whom it gives powers to break the law (the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency - really?). And if he abstains on the Overseas Operations Bill, some aspects of which have been criticised by senior army folk, really, what is he for?
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
@HYUFD is your betting strategy to use the number from any pollster that is the worst for Biden? It could work, but I just need to understand for betting purposes.
If you cast your mind back to last year and a Yougov poll that HYUFD kept banging on about for werks whilst the rest of us just laughed. It and HY turned out to be bang-on come December.
I am hoping lightning doesn't strike twice.
Yes, but he also thought it would be a Fillion/LePen 1/2 in the French Presidential election first round in face of all polling evidence and then bigged up Le Pen in round 2 when she was totally dominated by Macron.
Much like only picking Trafalgar polls where they got it right only bringing up predictions he got right makes them look a lot more accurate.
I never said it would be Fillon v Le Pen the day before polling day, I said that at Christmas when polling did suggest that, I said there was a chance Le Pen would win the first round but Macron would win the runoff that is all.
If France had the US system with the total number of winners of regions determining the winner not the national popular vote and no run off then Le Pen may indeed have won the first round if you look at the map of who won which region of France then
In the kind of politics she advocates, Jacinda Arden is everything that Trump isn’t. Her huge victory and Trump’s imminent defeat are powerful reasons for optimism in these dark times.
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
Fuck it, the market is on a "Trump good jag" and given that I think this is Biden high point of his polling I have cashed out enough to make my GOP liability zero. I will go back in on election night where I presume Trump will be odds on or something stupid.
You are probably correct. But I'm going to hang in there will old Joe.
In an uncertain world one thing is always certain:
The costs associated with building HS2, the high speed railway linking northern and southern England, have risen again.
The news comes less than two months after construction officially began.
Ministers have admitted an extra £800m is needed due to more asbestos being discovered and the complexities of bringing the railway into a new hub station at London Euston.
Earlier this year the government gave HS2 a revised budget of £98bn after previous costings became unrealistic.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
Something very beautiful is currently happening in New Zealand.
Labour and landslide. Two words I’ve not heard together in a while. My goodness if anyone has earned a good result she has. An impressive politician and a model for the left to follow.
Not with the spineless donkeys they have in this country
When was the year when you made your transition from Thatcherite Tory to Salmondite SNPer?
Well back into last century ( many generations for stupid Tories to understand ) and it was a single vote to get shot of the nutters / unions running Labour at that. A necessary evil at the time but has been extremely hard to live with the fact that I voted Tory once in my life.
This revelation has blown my mind.
You know, they say repeating the sin might make it weigh easier on the conscience..
But you know what they also say about preparing the fatted calf for the prodigal son, as a metaphor for the sinner that repenteth.
Don't forget that Malcy and I go back to the days when the realistic choice was between Labour and Tory MPs in FPTP, occasionally permed with a LD or SNP person. And given the quality of certain candidates ...
Exactly , they used to weigh the labour vote in those old days, SNP were only a fringe party winning their first seats. The scales were just starting to drop from people's eyes that they were being taken for fools, has been a long hard fight to get over the brainwashing.
I think Mr Herdson's header is a bit harsh on Starmer, although it makes some fair points.
However, I think he gets it completely wrong when he writes: He could, and should, have been vocal about the refusal to extend the Brexit transitional period when the Covid Crisis took so much time away from governments’ attentions.
Now, of course most sane people think that it would have been sensible to put the next stage of Brexit on the backburner while dealing with this awful virus crisis - for both ours and the EU's sake. That sort of goes without saying. But if Starmer had argued strongly for extending the transition, I'm in absolutely no doubt that the Tories, the tabloids, and many on here would have been howling from the rooftops: here he goes again, Starmer's trying to stop and then reverse Brexit.
Starmer's been spot on on Brexit; saying to the government, you were elected on Get Brexit Done with an Oven Ready Deal, so just get it over with. Let the government own the mess that is forthcoming.
Reading the header, anyone would think that Starmer's favourability ratings were on a par with Miliband's. They're anything but. It's also very strange timing for a header arguing that Starmer should have taken the gloves off on Covid, given that he has now done just that in spades.
I think the thread is motivated by David's inability to come to terms with the reality of Brexit and Starmer's failure to commit Labour to rejoining the EU, which is basically what Johnson would want him to do.
For the moment, while Brexit is still a live issue prior to becoming a tangible reality in 2021, Starmer can sit it out and be sanguine about the fact that leavers who formerly voted Labour have yet to return to his camp in large numbers. But after that, the issue won't be about Brexit but about the terms of the UK's future engagement with the EU, something that will have moved down the political agenda. Starmer can argue that the relationship is too distant and needs to be renegotiated, an approach that quite a lot of Leave supporters might go along with while still keeping Remainers on board. Overall, in the future Starmer will be seeking to move the agenda back towards domestic policy in the wake of Covid, and keep open his ability to get a hearing on that from former working class Labour voters by not alienating them now on Brexit.
So I agree, Starmer is spot on with his approach for the reasons you set out, and is playing the long game.
Starmer is finding his feet and biding his time, but the fundamentals look very good for him.
At some point that's going to have to change and he will have to set out his stall.
What's not yet clear is if this is all part of some clear grand plan or if he's just a bit of an empty triangulating vessel.
Punters are smashing into Trump on Betfair. I have no idea why.
The Betfair market is wierd this year as people got their fingers burned last time and take any favourable news for the Trump campaign as a healthy sprinkling of confirmation bias. I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people have seen the Trafalgar Michigan poll ("They were the only ones who got it right last time!") and are taking the same approach as a certain nameless poster on here who made a punt on Trump yesterday.
FWIW I do think we have seen the high water mark of Biden polling but that still makes him, justifiably, strongly favoured.
Hillary was also strong favoured in 2016 and we all know what happened then, I am not suggesting Biden won't win the popular vote, he almost certainly will but I now believe there is a strong chance Trump will narrowly win the EC and be re elected
Based on what? Trafalgar were exposed yesterday as charlatans by Robert so disregarding their polls completely what evidence are you working from?
They were the only pollster to forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 correctly using their methodology, every other pollster wrongly had Hillary comfortably ahead in both states, so to disregard their polls completely is absurd
They still go the vote share wrong though. They were right, but they were not accurate. Pollsters do not "forecast" states, they give a vote share and are judged on how accurate that is.
It's not worth arguing with him. There have been numerous responses debunking his superficial argument, plus one thread header a couple of days ago to the same effect, plus a recent analysis by 538 looking at the extensive methodology changes since 2016, and he just ignores them all and just keeps on parroting the same claim. Why argue with a broken record that you can't switch off?
I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
I totally sympathise with this view, but don't agree that we are inured. We are incensed. The awful reality is that a liberal society and rule of law versus suicidal barbarism is not and cannot be a level playing field.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
In the kind of politics she advocates, Jacinda Arden is everything that Trump isn’t. Her huge victory and Trump’s imminent defeat are powerful reasons for optimism in these dark times.
Good header but I view things differently. Lots of people with different agendas would like Starmer on their side. Civil libertarians want him opposing the spy bill. Remainers want him kicking up a fuss about Brexit. Freedom fretters want him to oppose lockdowns whilst others wish him to champion another big one. And of course for Corbynites any failure to oppose anything from Johnson is a craven betrayal of the class struggle.
So it has no doubt disappointed various people that he has not done these things. But the point is it doesn't matter right now. The next election is almost 4 years away. We don't need Labour policies or even the shape of the offering at this point. There are 2 unfolding disasters (our shambles of a Covid response and a sad looking Brexit outcome) which are owned lock stock & barrel by this Tory government. The catastrophic ramifications of these failures mean Labour should win the next election and Starmer is one lucky man to be leading Labour into it. PM is there for the taking.
There is one thing above all that he has to do to capitalize on his good fortune. He has to establish himself in the eyes of the public as a credible person to be PM. People have to look at him and go, "Yeah, I can imagine him at number 10. He'd be ok." That's all. Nothing to do with policy and little to do with left/right. The swing voters who decide elections don't get onto your policies unless that bar is cleared. You might think it’s a low bar but for a Labour leader it isn’t. The last 2 did not manage it. So I think this is the focus for Starmer and it’s the right one. If he succeeds, the rest will be a slam dunk.
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
No, I didn't see that and will try to look it out. I believe that he is a decent bloke from modest beginnings, and that is indeed a contrast to the entitled chancer in power.
Quite what direction he wants to take on the big issues of the day, I do not know. I can't see myself voting for him, but Mrs Foxy is a fan to be fair.
Good header but I view things differently. Lots of people with different agendas would like Starmer on their side. Civil libertarians want him opposing the spy bill. Remainers want him kicking up a fuss about Brexit. Freedom fretters want him to oppose lockdowns whilst others wish him to champion another big one. And of course for Corbynites any failure to oppose anything from Johnson is a craven betrayal of the class struggle.
So it has no doubt disappointed various people that he has not done these things. But the point is it doesn't matter right now. The next election is almost 4 years away. We don't need Labour policies or even the shape of the offering at this point. There are 2 unfolding disasters (our shambles of a Covid response and a sad looking Brexit outcome) which are owned lock stock & barrel by this Tory government. The catastrophic ramifications of these failures mean Labour should win the next election and Starmer is one lucky man to be leading Labour into it. PM is there for the taking.
There is one thing above all that he has to do to capitalize on his good fortune. He has to establish himself in the eyes of the public as a credible person to be PM. People have to look at him and go, "Yeah, I can imagine him at number 10. He'd be ok." That's all. Nothing to do with policy and little to do with left/right. The swing voters who decide elections don't get onto your policies unless that bar is cleared. You might think it’s a low bar but for a Labour leader it isn’t. The last 2 did not manage it. So I think this is the focus for Starmer and it’s the right one. If he succeeds, the rest will be a slam dunk.
I agree with David. It will be difficult to imagine him in No.10 if he is incapable of displaying leadership. He need to pick his battles with the government, but he can’t avoid them all. Mere criticism isn’t leadership.
In the kind of politics she advocates, Jacinda Arden is everything that Trump isn’t. Her huge victory and Trump’s imminent defeat are powerful reasons for optimism in these dark times.
Arden controlled the borders.
The thing Trump had promised to do but hasn't.
There are one or two advantages in border control that Aotearoa has over USA of course!
Somewhat odd timing for an article in a week where Starmer led the news.
Although David might answer he’s supposed to be leading the Labour Party and the Opoosition.
Starmer led all three this week.
And FWIW Burnhams contribution is entirely complementary. Labour is beginning to develop strength and depth.
I do hope so.
I’ve been far too exhausted to follow events this week so I’ve only been catching news flashes on the car radio. But my distinct impression on that superficial knowledge was that Burnham, not Starmer, was leading the response.
That would, whether it reflects the true situation or not, tend to support David’s basic point that he’s struggling to cut through. That wasn’t a problem Corbyn had, although he was usually in the news for negative reasons.
He is just another establishment empty suit. Millionaire self seeking useless arsehole who does not even have the guts to be a nasty Tory.
You CANNOT be describing Starmer! You're posts are usually on the nail. That just doesn't fit
Roger , I have a feeling he is another duffer. I don't like the cut of his jib and fact that he hates democracy confirms he is a wrong un, a sheep in Tory clothing.
I don't think much of Starmer either. Obviously a step up from Corbyn in terms of intelligence and organisation, but a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What exactly does he want to do?
I don't know whether you saw the Labour PPB where he was filmed in front of his original family house. One of the best broadcasts I've seen for ages. It answered all your questions and in an understated way answered Malcolm's criticisms as well. He's not what he looks like. I'd given up on politics but that was the first chink of light I've seen for ages. What he needs to do going forward is stand up for something unpopular like the UK's treatment of refugees and I think we'll all be surprised.
I will change my mind when I see him actually do something and that being something for ordinary people. Abstaining on every vote is not showing leadership.
Comments
Ardern's victory shows that the electorate do show gratitude for dealing with Covid successfully. If, as I hope, US voters show us that there is an electoral price for Covid-related incompetence, then the combined lesson might be worth studying by European governments.
Splitting the right would mean the right lost, but seeing what this right winning looks like, that might be a necessary price to pay. Like the SDP's weakening of Labour in 1983.
Adern did well on the former, though helped also by New Zealand's isolation but the verdict is still out on the long term economic impact of her tourism ban for example
Not too bad for a poor legal aid lawyer methinks.
Although testing is better now it is important to remember that positive test numbers do not have a 1:1 relationship with the real level of infection that is present.
On the ONS figures it's not the same.
Got to have the right people... nudge, nudge, wink, wink
Certainly Quisling Cairns.
Not that I though much of Peters when I lived in NZ a few decades ago.
Worth noting that those businesses in the supply chain - breweries, for instance, aren’t even eligible for this little help. Daughter got a sad email from one such Lancashire brewery reminding her that they were still open and could they supply etc, they would even deliver quarter barrels (not something they would normally do) etc.
And remember also that the directors of such places also have a legal obligation not to trade while insolvent. So unless the government provides proper support, pretty soon plenty of places will be forced to close.
That is as a result of a political choice by the government to abandon one of the biggest industries this country has.
That is the point Starmer should be making and his Shadow Chancellor and which Burnham has, to some extent been making.
However, I think he gets it completely wrong when he writes: He could, and should, have been vocal about the refusal to extend the Brexit transitional period when the Covid Crisis took so much time away from governments’ attentions.
Now, of course most sane people think that it would have been sensible to put the next stage of Brexit on the backburner while dealing with this awful virus crisis - for both ours and the EU's sake. That sort of goes without saying. But if Starmer had argued strongly for extending the transition, I'm in absolutely no doubt that the Tories, the tabloids, and many on here would have been howling from the rooftops: here he goes again, Starmer's trying to stop and then reverse Brexit.
Starmer's been spot on on Brexit; saying to the government, you were elected on Get Brexit Done with an Oven Ready Deal, so just get it over with. Let the government own the mess that is forthcoming.
My guess is that 2021 will be better economically for NZ than Ireland. They'll have more fun this Christmas in NZ too.
Britain has nothing to learn about masks, contact tracing, restricting flights and monitoring new arrivals. That's what's landed us here.
Back on-topic. Jacinda Ardern is a cautious, middle-of-the-road politician who does still have time for experts. Ardern, Biden, Starmer: is there a trend?
On the left there is also the split between Labour and the Greens
If "work" = "short term deferment of cases which return when lockdown ends" then I suspect they do.
What we need to do is "learn to live" with COVID - and there are models in Asia of how this can work - Masks, distancing, control of borders - which the UK has been woeful at (but not all of the British Isles).
Rather than argue with those who cherry pick polls to fit their biases or to 2016, it's easiest to just continue to take their money on Betfair. The drift in odds over the last day makes it all the more tempting!
I'll give a notable mention to MrEd who brings some more interesting analysis to the 'how Trump could win case', even if it doesn't convince me that Biden is exceptionally good value.
Starmer is not rich by the standards of a successful, London member of the professional classes. I accept he could have made much more money than he did.
But, he is very rich by the standards of most of the rest of the UK.
Trump losing would bring me a lot of happiness.
Yes, we can learn something from New Zealand but South Korea is a better example as closer to the UK and has contained Covid cases like New Zealand with less economic damage
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/new-zealand-in-covid-recession-after-worst-quarterly-gdp-fall-on-record
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-economy-oecd/oecd-sees-south-korea-growth-to-outperform-all-others-this-year-idUKKCN2570NH
The only significant difference is that she is the Queen of Woke, which has got her a lot of youth votes, and she has policies like gender neutral bathrooms in all schools. Her economic platform isn't particularly left-wing.
It's the former that's now far more important to millennials in voting than the latter, which they're not particularly interested in as long as they can buy a house and otherwise feel good about themselves.
EDIT: Sorry, appears not.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/10/14/sweden-students-told-to-stop-partying-as-coronavirus-cases-rise/
It really doesn't sound very different, does it?
I think it's odds-on, at present, that the Conservatives will lose in 2024 but we should be cautious of drawing lazy causations from apparent correlations.
Brazil is closer than NZ to the UK, but not many people are claiming that we should be using Brazil as a guiding example to the Covid Pandemic.
I am hoping lightning doesn't strike twice.
Indeed there are remarkable similarities between the emptiness of Starmer and Theresa May who with Brexit avoided taking a side and allowed others to define things in her absence.
Of course Starmer isn't PM so isn't having to win meaningful votes but if his vacillating continues it would be interesting to see if his polling is a mirage as May's was in 2017 once finally put to the test.
Don't forget that Malcy and I go back to the days when the realistic choice was between Labour and Tory MPs in FPTP, occasionally permed with a LD or SNP person. And given the quality of certain candidates ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQo3XMpwwzA&ab_channel=Newshub
He didn't qualify as a barrister until he was 25 or so, and he probably didn't earn much in his first few years at the bar; as has been pointed. out he wasn't in a high-paying area of practice and he did a lot of pro-bono work as well. His wife doesn't appear to be a high earner, either.
Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?
If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.
Hillary of course led most swing state average polls in 2016 too
David is I'm afraid quite wrong on the circuit breaker. It would have had a significant impact and will I suspect in a month or so be identified as a major opportunity missed.
Do you think any US pollsters have changed their methodology since 2016? What is your assessment of the impact of the changes any of them might have made?
Much like only picking Trafalgar polls where they got it right only bringing up predictions he got right makes them look a lot more accurate.
He comes across as yet another globalist sociopath.
With a underlying theme of 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best'.
I think the thread is motivated by David's inability to come to terms with the reality of Brexit and Starmer's failure to commit Labour to rejoining the EU, which is basically what Johnson would want him to do.
For the moment, while Brexit is still a live issue prior to becoming a tangible reality in 2021, Starmer can sit it out and be sanguine about the fact that leavers who formerly voted Labour have yet to return to his camp in large numbers. But after that, the issue won't be about Brexit but about the terms of the UK's future engagement with the EU, something that will have moved down the political agenda. Starmer can argue that the relationship is too distant and needs to be renegotiated, an approach that quite a lot of Leave supporters might go along with while still keeping Remainers on board. Overall, in the future Starmer will be seeking to move the agenda back towards domestic policy in the wake of Covid, and keep open his ability to get a hearing on that from former working class Labour voters by not alienating them now on Brexit.
So I agree, Starmer is spot on with his approach for the reasons you set out, and is playing the long game.
But I agree that we will have to learn to live with Covid
The costs associated with building HS2, the high speed railway linking northern and southern England, have risen again.
The news comes less than two months after construction officially began.
Ministers have admitted an extra £800m is needed due to more asbestos being discovered and the complexities of bringing the railway into a new hub station at London Euston.
Earlier this year the government gave HS2 a revised budget of £98bn after previous costings became unrealistic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54538639
Some of the opposition to these bills is Corbynista but not all of it. And there are plenty of very sound reasons why we should be opposed to two bills which, like much of what this government tries to do, aims to put the government and its agents outside and beyond the scope of the law. This is dangerous and Starmer, of all people, should know why.
It may be good to get rid of Corbynistas from the party. God knows I have never been a Corbyn fan. But it is a bad move to allow the arguments against some very bad and dangerous legislation to be made only by them when there are very respectable arguments he ought to be making.
If France had the US system with the total number of winners of regions determining the winner not the national popular vote and no run off then Le Pen may indeed have won the first round if you look at the map of who won which region of France then
https://twitter.com/maps_black/status/1312056366299832325?s=20
At some point that's going to have to change and he will have to set out his stall.
What's not yet clear is if this is all part of some clear grand plan or if he's just a bit of an empty triangulating vessel.
Only time will tell.
Cyclefree would need to tell us what 'incensed' looks like in a free society with liberal values? If it looks like revenge it is no longer a liberal society. If it counters barbarity with barbarity, the same applies. If it applies communal guilt to a swathe of people by ethnicity or religion, the same applies.
The thing Trump had promised to do but hasn't.
So it has no doubt disappointed various people that he has not done these things. But the point is it doesn't matter right now. The next election is almost 4 years away. We don't need Labour policies or even the shape of the offering at this point. There are 2 unfolding disasters (our shambles of a Covid response and a sad looking Brexit outcome) which are owned lock stock & barrel by this Tory government. The catastrophic ramifications of these failures mean Labour should win the next election and Starmer is one lucky man to be leading Labour into it. PM is there for the taking.
There is one thing above all that he has to do to capitalize on his good fortune. He has to establish himself in the eyes of the public as a credible person to be PM. People have to look at him and go, "Yeah, I can imagine him at number 10. He'd be ok." That's all. Nothing to do with policy and little to do with left/right. The swing voters who decide elections don't get onto your policies unless that bar is cleared. You might think it’s a low bar but for a Labour leader it isn’t. The last 2 did not manage it. So I think this is the focus for Starmer and it’s the right one. If he succeeds, the rest will be a slam dunk.
Quite what direction he wants to take on the big issues of the day, I do not know. I can't see myself voting for him, but Mrs Foxy is a fan to be fair.
He need to pick his battles with the government, but he can’t avoid them all. Mere criticism isn’t leadership.