At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.
No, working class one-time Labour voters switched to the Clown primarily because they didn't want what they regarded as a communist in No 10. Very simple. Mike has done a number of headers that have demo'd this. Perhaps you missed them.
Except those working class voters voted for Corbyn in 2017, they merely lent their votes to Boris in 2019 to get Brexit done
We'll see if it was lent.
The "red wall" North outside of the cities has been swinging blue relative to the rest of the country for the past decade now.
It still stayed Labour overall in 2017, it only went Tory in 2019
That's how swinging works. Eventually it reaches a tipping point.
It was the need to get Brexit done that was the tipping point.
The last Opinium poll showed now Brexit has been done Labour were back ahead in Red Wall seats the Tories gained in 2019, though the Tories were still comfortably ahead in Tory holds in 2019
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
You are dancing on a pin.
He was [subjectively] the best for amongst other reasons the reasons I have given.
There's no such thing as objective so its silly to bring it in. He [subjectively] was the best, we only have subjective reality. The public agreed that [subjectively] he was the best.
It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his Queen's Speech programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.
Whatever helps maintain your moral superiority mate.
If by 'whatever' you mean 'indisputable facts', then yes.
Not at all
If you can prove that voting for an MP who would have made Corbyn Prime Minister is in any meaningful way 'not voting for Corbyn' under our constitutional and electoral system, then you'll deserve a very lucrative legal career indeed.
You made some ridiculous and partisan assertion that the fact 30% of the country voted for Labour led by Corbyn is a "national disgrace".
I simply offered a counter-point. I voted for a Labour candidate but I was far from a supporter of Corbyn. I just didn't want some nameless Tory nobody representing my constituency rather than a good local MP with a fine track record. If you can't see the logic there then maybe you need to check your partisanship.
A bit unfair to the Tory candidate, or any challenger facing an incumbent MP.
BTW: The interviews in Gaelic give the impression that most people in the Highlands speak the language. Sadly, not been true for a long old time. As a community language now restricted to the islands and in decline there.
Rather sobering to reflect, that after the horrors of the 2015 campaign, Blackford still occupies his old seat.
It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his Queen's Speech programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.
Whatever helps maintain your moral superiority mate.
If by 'whatever' you mean 'indisputable facts', then yes.
Not at all
If you can prove that voting for an MP who would have made Corbyn Prime Minister is in any meaningful way 'not voting for Corbyn' under our constitutional and electoral system, then you'll deserve a very lucrative legal career indeed.
You made some ridiculous and partisan assertion that the fact 30% of the country voted for Labour led by Corbyn is a "national disgrace".
I simply offered a counter-point. I voted for a Labour candidate but I was far from a supporter of Corbyn. I just didn't want some nameless Tory nobody representing my constituency rather than a good local MP with a fine track record. If you can't see the logic there then maybe you need to check your partisanship.
A bit unfair to the Tory candidate, or any challenger facing an incumbent MP.
Well the government has the same incumbency advantage.
The Conservative candidate for Newcastle upon Tyne North was from Bedford with zero links to Newcastle. Why would I vote for him?
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.
No, working class one-time Labour voters switched to the Clown primarily because they didn't want what they regarded as a communist in No 10. Very simple. Mike has done a number of headers that have demo'd this. Perhaps you missed them.
Except those working class voters voted for Corbyn in 2017, they merely lent their votes to Boris in 2019 to get Brexit done
We'll see if it was lent.
The "red wall" North outside of the cities has been swinging blue relative to the rest of the country for the past decade now.
It still stayed Labour overall in 2017, it only went Tory in 2019
That's how swinging works. Eventually it reaches a tipping point.
It was the need to get Brexit done that was the tipping point.
The last Opinium poll showed now Brexit has been done Labour were back ahead in Red Wall seats the Tories gained in 2019, though the Tories were still comfortably ahead in Tory holds in 2019
Not necessarily the tipping point. As I said the trend was for those swings for a decade now.
Opinion polls are not the gospel truth, though you take them as such. 🙄
I downloaded the Alex Salmond evidence documents yesterday as some light reading. I have compared the unredacted and redacted ministerial code submissions. The only changes were to remove references to 2 meetings to discuss the handling of the allegations against AS, with the redactions having no relation at all to the accusers identity. I understand the redactions were made after a request from the Crown Office, but I do not understand on what basis that objection was made or agreed to.
I assume the committee cannot now ask AS about these meetings because the sections have been redacted, and AS cannot talk about them in front of the committee.
This really stinks. Parliaments should be able to dig into things like this without fear or favour, otherwise future governments with really unpleasant leaders could use the precedent to cover up anything. I am amazed that the committee are being so supine.
I have to credit full marks for your observation and to be honest, irrespective of the Independence debate, the SNP have the air of decay and corruption that often comes with dominant power
My wife is very sad to observe the state of Scottish politics and does not recognise the nasty and toxic culture which has no part in the open generous nature of Scots
I have no idea how this will effect the polling but maybe Scots will look again before empowering the SNP yet again in May
And vote for whom instead? Remember that: 1. The hooey about Salmond is a fabulous bit of soap opera but isn't seen as politics 2. The SNP have quite a strong record to point to when asking for re-election 3. Their various policy failings compare reasonably well against the policy failings of the alternative Tory or Labour options
Politics isn't about one single party in isolation. Yes there is a smell about some of these SNP shenanigans, but if Big G suggests the solution to corruption is to vote Tory then hold my coffee whilst I wee myself laughing. The worst case scenario for the SNP is to be reduced to a minority administration.
2. They have a what now? What exactly does this record consist of? The last time I saw a bulleted list of SNP achievements from them, it had giving cardboard boxes to families to put babies in near the top of a very short list - not even something from the most recent term of office.
One of the striking things about how the SNP conducts itself is the frequency with which it simply ignores votes in the Scottish Parliament. Latest one is to publish the OECD report on Scottish education. Parliament votes for it to be published, Swinney refuses, and it sits on his desk until after polling day. Same with evidence that should have been given to the Salmond Inquiry.
Apparently OK for Scottish Govt to ignore votes at Holyrood but all hell to break loose if UK Govt similarly ignores. Go figure.
England have a tail of Archer, Leach, Broad, Anderson... and one spinner. Don't think they ever had a chance in this match unless Root hit another first innings double century.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
Johnson's 'plan', faced with the confusion British industry was facing, was to make the situation incomparably worse. To 'make a desolation and call it peace'.
Worse?
The situation is far better now than it was in 2019 in my opinion.
I downloaded the Alex Salmond evidence documents yesterday as some light reading. I have compared the unredacted and redacted ministerial code submissions. The only changes were to remove references to 2 meetings to discuss the handling of the allegations against AS, with the redactions having no relation at all to the accusers identity. I understand the redactions were made after a request from the Crown Office, but I do not understand on what basis that objection was made or agreed to.
I assume the committee cannot now ask AS about these meetings because the sections have been redacted, and AS cannot talk about them in front of the committee.
This really stinks. Parliaments should be able to dig into things like this without fear or favour, otherwise future governments with really unpleasant leaders could use the precedent to cover up anything. I am amazed that the committee are being so supine.
I have to credit full marks for your observation and to be honest, irrespective of the Independence debate, the SNP have the air of decay and corruption that often comes with dominant power
My wife is very sad to observe the state of Scottish politics and does not recognise the nasty and toxic culture which has no part in the open generous nature of Scots
I have no idea how this will effect the polling but maybe Scots will look again before empowering the SNP yet again in May
And vote for whom instead? Remember that: 1. The hooey about Salmond is a fabulous bit of soap opera but isn't seen as politics 2. The SNP have quite a strong record to point to when asking for re-election 3. Their various policy failings compare reasonably well against the policy failings of the alternative Tory or Labour options
Politics isn't about one single party in isolation. Yes there is a smell about some of these SNP shenanigans, but if Big G suggests the solution to corruption is to vote Tory then hold my coffee whilst I wee myself laughing. The worst case scenario for the SNP is to be reduced to a minority administration.
2. They have a what now? What exactly does this record consist of? The last time I saw a bulleted list of SNP achievements from them, it had giving cardboard boxes to families to put babies in near the top of a very short list - not even something from the most recent term of office.
One of the striking things about how the SNP conducts itself is the frequency with which it simply ignores votes in the Scottish Parliament. Latest one is to publish the OECD report on Scottish education. Parliament votes for it to be published, Swinney refuses, and it sits on his desk until after polling day. Same with evidence that should have been given to the Salmond Inquiry.
Apparently OK for Scottish Govt to ignore votes at Holyrood but all hell to break loose if UK Govt similarly ignores. Go figure.
I hope you're not suggesting that hypocrisy is in any way a bar to political success?
BTW: The interviews in Gaelic give the impression that most people in the Highlands speak the language. Sadly, not been true for a long old time. As a community language now restricted to the islands and in decline there.
Rather sobering to reflect, that after the horrors of the 2015 campaign, Blackford still occupies his old seat.
Just to reassure potential viewers, most of the Charles Kennedy documentary is in English, and includes many clips of Kennedy on television and in the Commons, and there are onscreen subtitles for Gaelic. Oddly, it is only available on Iplayer for a month so do not leave it too long. (I'd have expected a year.)
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
Johnson's 'plan', faced with the confusion British industry was facing, was to make the situation incomparably worse. To 'make a desolation and call it peace'.
Worse?
The situation is far better now than it was in 2019 in my opinion.
For whom? Even disregarding Covid?
Obviously disregarding Covid.
Business, Parliament, the public.
We're out of the Article 50 extension quagmire, we're out of the worst and most incoherent Parliament of my lifetime. We have some certainty now about what's going on and people can invest on that basis and move on.
BTW: The interviews in Gaelic give the impression that most people in the Highlands speak the language. Sadly, not been true for a long old time. As a community language now restricted to the islands and in decline there.
Rather sobering to reflect, that after the horrors of the 2015 campaign, Blackford still occupies his old seat.
Just to reassure potential viewers, most of the Charles Kennedy documentary is in English, and includes many clips of Kennedy on television and in the Commons, and there are onscreen subtitles for Gaelic. Oddly, it is only available on Iplayer for a month so do not leave it too long. (I'd have expected a year.)
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
Johnson's 'plan', faced with the confusion British industry was facing, was to make the situation incomparably worse. To 'make a desolation and call it peace'.
Worse?
The situation is far better now than it was in 2019 in my opinion.
For whom? Even disregarding Covid?
Obviously disregarding Covid.
Business, Parliament, the public.
We're out of the Article 50 extension quagmire, we're out of the worst and most incoherent Parliament of my lifetime. We have some certainty now about what's going on and people can invest on that basis and move on.
Really don't get that about business. And I have to say that the present crop of MP's are as undistinguished as I have seen.
It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his Queen's Speech programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.
Whatever helps maintain your moral superiority mate.
If by 'whatever' you mean 'indisputable facts', then yes.
Not at all
If you can prove that voting for an MP who would have made Corbyn Prime Minister is in any meaningful way 'not voting for Corbyn' under our constitutional and electoral system, then you'll deserve a very lucrative legal career indeed.
You made some ridiculous and partisan assertion that the fact 30% of the country voted for Labour led by Corbyn is a "national disgrace".
I simply offered a counter-point. I voted for a Labour candidate but I was far from a supporter of Corbyn. I just didn't want some nameless Tory nobody representing my constituency rather than a good local MP with a fine track record. If you can't see the logic there then maybe you need to check your partisanship.
A bit unfair to the Tory candidate, or any challenger facing an incumbent MP.
Well the government has the same incumbency advantage.
BTW: The interviews in Gaelic give the impression that most people in the Highlands speak the language. Sadly, not been true for a long old time. As a community language now restricted to the islands and in decline there.
Rather sobering to reflect, that after the horrors of the 2015 campaign, Blackford still occupies his old seat.
Just to reassure potential viewers, most of the Charles Kennedy documentary is in English, and includes many clips of Kennedy on television and in the Commons, and there are onscreen subtitles for Gaelic. Oddly, it is only available on Iplayer for a month so do not leave it too long. (I'd have expected a year.)
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
Johnson's 'plan', faced with the confusion British industry was facing, was to make the situation incomparably worse. To 'make a desolation and call it peace'.
Worse?
The situation is far better now than it was in 2019 in my opinion.
For whom? Even disregarding Covid?
Obviously disregarding Covid.
Business, Parliament, the public.
We're out of the Article 50 extension quagmire, we're out of the worst and most incoherent Parliament of my lifetime. We have some certainty now about what's going on and people can invest on that basis and move on.
Really don't get that about business. And I have to say that the present crop of MP's are as undistinguished as I have seen.
Business in 2019 had investment on hold because they had no idea as to what was going to happen post-Brexit - and the MPs of 2017-19 were perpetually extending Article 50 keeping that uncertainty dangling over business like the sword of Damocles.
Now businesses have certainty. For some businesses, which will be much magnified in Tweets here, that may not be good - sucks for them. But for the rest, the uncertainty has been removed and they can move on now.
This is a remarkable data visualisation from a study of hospitalised patient outcomes (likelihood of discharge vs mortality), which suggests that much of the mortality risk from pre-existing conditions suggested by other studies might simply be because those conditions become more prevalent with age.
Intriguing that being male doesn't look to be much of a contributor.
That said, if the figure of 10 years for the average amount of life lost is true, then we should expect underlying health conditions to be largely immaterial.
The graphic is not good, because age makes everything else look the same by dwarfing other variables, but in the text we see male sex is a significant risk factor:
"Male sex was also associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.76, 95%CI=1.33-2.35)"
Fair point. Perhaps a more useful way of presenting the data would be to say the risk of death was approximately the same for a male who is x years younger than a female (not sure if that could be worked out, though).
The caregories also seem strange.
To divide Diabetes into "Complicated" and "Uncomplicated" without considering range of complications, or by Type I and Type II (which is significant), is very questionable.
Can we have a thread header on this Salmond/Sturgeon thing please? I honestly have no idea what's going on.
2018, all the people who had loathed Salmond for decades exploded with joy at the prospect of him being tried & convicted for attempted rape, and going to jail. A side note was a belief that Sturgeon was trying to protect Salmond.
2020, all the people who had loathed Salmond for decades broke into a howl of rage that he had got off, with much blubbering about fixes and the women alleging assault having been let down.
2021, all the people who had loathed Salmond for decades went through a Damascene conversion to believing a great injustice had been done to him, and that Sturgeon, the most popular politician in Scotland, must resign.
The unifying factor of these chameleon-like changes is that each time these people believed that they had found yet another silver bullet to destroy Scottish Indy and the SNP. Because they have no talented politicians, policies, positive cases for the UK or consistent principles of their own, they have to cling to these external events to preserve their fraying union.
I think that just about covers a particular aspect of what's going on.
What a load of rubbish.
It's quite possible to simultaneously hold the view that Salmond is a loathsome creep, and also that he has been shafted by Sturgeon et al in a way that bends and breaks the rules.
In fact it is quiet plausible to believe that Sturgeon knew all about Salmond's unsavoury predilections but was very happy to support him when it suited her. Indeed, he actively promoted her career. Moreover the fact that he was supported by such a prominent woman all those years probably gave pause to other women who might otherwise have come forward.
So, if you believe that, it's very easy to understand why he might feel a touch aggrieved when she refused all support when he found himself in a tight spot.
But, of course, to true believers neither Salmond or Sturgeon can be held to have any faults, until the Party dictates otherwise.
Life in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Scotland.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
I'm not totally sure I share that analysis, as the 2017 election was remarkable in its relative lack of focus on Brexit, and Labour's campaign surge was more related to the fact May unwisely had a manifesto covering other issues.
Also, in 2019, the modest LD recovery was more in the area of Tory remainers - stockbroker belt types.
It's also a shade churlish to say Corbyn was unloved. He was divisive, certainly. But there was a non-trivial group who felt it was a more authentic form of Labour politics - a view that struggled to survive the anti-semitism rows that followed.
Blaming May's 2017 manifesto absolves Sir Lynton Crosby of blame for possibly the most ill-directed campaigns ever. You can't parrot "strong and stable" after a U-turn on the second day. However, the crucial role of events, dear boy, events is too often overlooked.
There were two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself. London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert. Normally, these would have favoured the blue team except Theresa May had personally given 20,000 coppers their cards. That is why Theresa May lost her majority.
And we know I'm right because, well, it's me, and because Boris won in 2019 with a promise to recruit 20,000 new police officers. In general, we can see what worked for Corbyn in 2017 because CCHQ shamelessly lifted it for Boris in 2019.
There is something odd about reportage of the failure of the May election campaign. Vs 2015 she increased the Tory vote by 2.3m, a 20% increase. So the idea that she was unpopular or that she repelled voters isn't true - the opposite is.
Where the Tory campaign fell apart was its shit targeting. They did a sensational job in Scotland and started the process of nibbling away at the red wall. Their problem was that they lost a stack of seats in mainly urban areas to small majorities - Bedford, Canterbury, Colne Valley, Crewe & Nantwich, Ipswich, Keighley, Kensington, Peterborough, Stockton South, Stroud - and others by a few thousand which mainly came straight back in 2019.
So the question is less "why were the Tories so unpopular" or even "why were Labour so popular" and more "why did the Tories ground campaign fall apart?"
The increase in the Conservative vote was largely driven by UKIP's collapse at that election.
It's similar to Corbynistas saying they did so much better than Labour in elections where the Lib Dems were at double the vote share they obtained in 2017/19. You can only play the teams in front of you, of course, but it's an unconvincing argument for anyone open to the slightest bit of nuance.
May's campaign was misconceived on two fronts.
Firstly, she had a range of non-Brexit policies which hadn't been thought through or socialised with the party. So they unravelled and her party hadn't bought in and wouldn't ride to the rescue, as well as the fact it distracted from the Brexit message (a lesson learned in 2019).
Secondly, the campaign was built around her personality (Strong and Stable, Crush the Saboteurs, May or Corbyn) but she didn't have one - or at least not that one. She essentially went into hiding, running from debates and even interviews, and appearing nervous and possibly unwell. I have a lot of sympathy for her - she's not an extrovert and that's fine. But you don't have a campaign that writes cheques your personality can't cash.
On targeting, I am not so sure. The fact is there was a small Tory to Labour swing so the Tories lost 13 seats (and would've been worse but for Ruth Davidson). They might have stemmed those loses a bit had they more rapidly adapted to the fact that a campaign which started with huge leads had gone to porridge. But that's damage limitation - it's not the fundamental flaw of the campaign.
BTW: The interviews in Gaelic give the impression that most people in the Highlands speak the language. Sadly, not been true for a long old time. As a community language now restricted to the islands and in decline there.
Rather sobering to reflect, that after the horrors of the 2015 campaign, Blackford still occupies his old seat.
Just to reassure potential viewers, most of the Charles Kennedy documentary is in English, and includes many clips of Kennedy on television and in the Commons, and there are onscreen subtitles for Gaelic. Oddly, it is only available on Iplayer for a month so do not leave it too long. (I'd have expected a year.)
I know bowlers are picked to bowl but Archer, Leach, Broad, Anderson must be the weakest tail in years.
England's tail currently starts around #2 in the batting order..... England currently only have 2 batsmen that any other team would want in Root and Stokes.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
I'm not totally sure I share that analysis, as the 2017 election was remarkable in its relative lack of focus on Brexit, and Labour's campaign surge was more related to the fact May unwisely had a manifesto covering other issues.
Also, in 2019, the modest LD recovery was more in the area of Tory remainers - stockbroker belt types.
It's also a shade churlish to say Corbyn was unloved. He was divisive, certainly. But there was a non-trivial group who felt it was a more authentic form of Labour politics - a view that struggled to survive the anti-semitism rows that followed.
Blaming May's 2017 manifesto absolves Sir Lynton Crosby of blame for possibly the most ill-directed campaigns ever. You can't parrot "strong and stable" after a U-turn on the second day. However, the crucial role of events, dear boy, events is too often overlooked.
There were two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself. London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert. Normally, these would have favoured the blue team except Theresa May had personally given 20,000 coppers their cards. That is why Theresa May lost her majority.
And we know I'm right because, well, it's me, and because Boris won in 2019 with a promise to recruit 20,000 new police officers. In general, we can see what worked for Corbyn in 2017 because CCHQ shamelessly lifted it for Boris in 2019.
There is something odd about reportage of the failure of the May election campaign. Vs 2015 she increased the Tory vote by 2.3m, a 20% increase. So the idea that she was unpopular or that she repelled voters isn't true - the opposite is.
Where the Tory campaign fell apart was its shit targeting. They did a sensational job in Scotland and started the process of nibbling away at the red wall. Their problem was that they lost a stack of seats in mainly urban areas to small majorities - Bedford, Canterbury, Colne Valley, Crewe & Nantwich, Ipswich, Keighley, Kensington, Peterborough, Stockton South, Stroud - and others by a few thousand which mainly came straight back in 2019.
So the question is less "why were the Tories so unpopular" or even "why were Labour so popular" and more "why did the Tories ground campaign fall apart?"
The increase in the Conservative vote was largely driven by UKIP's collapse at that election.
It's similar to Corbynistas saying they did so much better than Labour in elections where the Lib Dems were at double the vote share they obtained in 2017/19. You can only play the teams in front of you, of course, but it's an unconvincing argument for anyone open to the slightest bit of nuance.
May's campaign was misconceived on two fronts.
Firstly, she had a range of non-Brexit policies which hadn't been thought through or socialised with the party. So they unravelled and her party hadn't bought in and wouldn't ride to the rescue, as well as the fact it distracted from the Brexit message (a lesson learned in 2019).
Secondly, the campaign was built around her personality (Strong and Stable, Crush the Saboteurs, May or Corbyn) but she didn't have one - or at least not that one. She essentially went into hiding, running from debates and even interviews, and appearing nervous and possibly unwell. I have a lot of sympathy for her - she's not an extrovert and that's fine. But you don't have a campaign that writes cheques your personality can't cash.
On targeting, I am not so sure. The fact is there was a small Tory to Labour swing so the Tories lost 13 seats (and would've been worse but for Ruth Davidson). They might have stemmed those loses a bit had they more rapidly adapted to the fact that a campaign which started with huge leads had gone to porridge. But that's damage limitation - it's not the fundamental flaw of the campaign.
It also put a lot of the red wall seats into play.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
I'm not totally sure I share that analysis, as the 2017 election was remarkable in its relative lack of focus on Brexit, and Labour's campaign surge was more related to the fact May unwisely had a manifesto covering other issues.
Also, in 2019, the modest LD recovery was more in the area of Tory remainers - stockbroker belt types.
It's also a shade churlish to say Corbyn was unloved. He was divisive, certainly. But there was a non-trivial group who felt it was a more authentic form of Labour politics - a view that struggled to survive the anti-semitism rows that followed.
Blaming May's 2017 manifesto absolves Sir Lynton Crosby of blame for possibly the most ill-directed campaigns ever. You can't parrot "strong and stable" after a U-turn on the second day. However, the crucial role of events, dear boy, events is too often overlooked.
There were two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself. London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert. Normally, these would have favoured the blue team except Theresa May had personally given 20,000 coppers their cards. That is why Theresa May lost her majority.
And we know I'm right because, well, it's me, and because Boris won in 2019 with a promise to recruit 20,000 new police officers. In general, we can see what worked for Corbyn in 2017 because CCHQ shamelessly lifted it for Boris in 2019.
There is something odd about reportage of the failure of the May election campaign. Vs 2015 she increased the Tory vote by 2.3m, a 20% increase. So the idea that she was unpopular or that she repelled voters isn't true - the opposite is.
Where the Tory campaign fell apart was its shit targeting. They did a sensational job in Scotland and started the process of nibbling away at the red wall. Their problem was that they lost a stack of seats in mainly urban areas to small majorities - Bedford, Canterbury, Colne Valley, Crewe & Nantwich, Ipswich, Keighley, Kensington, Peterborough, Stockton South, Stroud - and others by a few thousand which mainly came straight back in 2019.
So the question is less "why were the Tories so unpopular" or even "why were Labour so popular" and more "why did the Tories ground campaign fall apart?"
The increase in the Conservative vote was largely driven by UKIP's collapse at that election.
It's similar to Corbynistas saying they did so much better than Labour in elections where the Lib Dems were at double the vote share they obtained in 2017/19. You can only play the teams in front of you, of course, but it's an unconvincing argument for anyone open to the slightest bit of nuance.
May's campaign was misconceived on two fronts.
Firstly, she had a range of non-Brexit policies which hadn't been thought through or socialised with the party. So they unravelled and her party hadn't bought in and wouldn't ride to the rescue, as well as the fact it distracted from the Brexit message (a lesson learned in 2019).
Secondly, the campaign was built around her personality (Strong and Stable, Crush the Saboteurs, May or Corbyn) but she didn't have one - or at least not that one. She essentially went into hiding, running from debates and even interviews, and appearing nervous and possibly unwell. I have a lot of sympathy for her - she's not an extrovert and that's fine. But you don't have a campaign that writes cheques your personality can't cash.
On targeting, I am not so sure. The fact is there was a small Tory to Labour swing so the Tories lost 13 seats (and would've been worse but for Ruth Davidson). They might have stemmed those loses a bit had they more rapidly adapted to the fact that a campaign which started with huge leads had gone to porridge. But that's damage limitation - it's not the fundamental flaw of the campaign.
Agree. It is, in retrospect, slightly odd that TM ever reached the position of PM. It's not a job you'd expect someone of that personality to occupy. There have been examples in the past of taciturn or introverted leaders (Calvin Coolidge), but not that many. An keenness to engage with people seems as fundamental a quality in a Prime Minister as a keenness to run fast is in a sprinter.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
I'm not totally sure I share that analysis, as the 2017 election was remarkable in its relative lack of focus on Brexit, and Labour's campaign surge was more related to the fact May unwisely had a manifesto covering other issues.
Also, in 2019, the modest LD recovery was more in the area of Tory remainers - stockbroker belt types.
It's also a shade churlish to say Corbyn was unloved. He was divisive, certainly. But there was a non-trivial group who felt it was a more authentic form of Labour politics - a view that struggled to survive the anti-semitism rows that followed.
Blaming May's 2017 manifesto absolves Sir Lynton Crosby of blame for possibly the most ill-directed campaigns ever. You can't parrot "strong and stable" after a U-turn on the second day. However, the crucial role of events, dear boy, events is too often overlooked.
There were two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself. London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert. Normally, these would have favoured the blue team except Theresa May had personally given 20,000 coppers their cards. That is why Theresa May lost her majority.
And we know I'm right because, well, it's me, and because Boris won in 2019 with a promise to recruit 20,000 new police officers. In general, we can see what worked for Corbyn in 2017 because CCHQ shamelessly lifted it for Boris in 2019.
There is something odd about reportage of the failure of the May election campaign. Vs 2015 she increased the Tory vote by 2.3m, a 20% increase. So the idea that she was unpopular or that she repelled voters isn't true - the opposite is.
Where the Tory campaign fell apart was its shit targeting. They did a sensational job in Scotland and started the process of nibbling away at the red wall. Their problem was that they lost a stack of seats in mainly urban areas to small majorities - Bedford, Canterbury, Colne Valley, Crewe & Nantwich, Ipswich, Keighley, Kensington, Peterborough, Stockton South, Stroud - and others by a few thousand which mainly came straight back in 2019.
So the question is less "why were the Tories so unpopular" or even "why were Labour so popular" and more "why did the Tories ground campaign fall apart?"
The increase in the Conservative vote was largely driven by UKIP's collapse at that election.
It's similar to Corbynistas saying they did so much better than Labour in elections where the Lib Dems were at double the vote share they obtained in 2017/19. You can only play the teams in front of you, of course, but it's an unconvincing argument for anyone open to the slightest bit of nuance.
May's campaign was misconceived on two fronts.
Firstly, she had a range of non-Brexit policies which hadn't been thought through or socialised with the party. So they unravelled and her party hadn't bought in and wouldn't ride to the rescue, as well as the fact it distracted from the Brexit message (a lesson learned in 2019).
Secondly, the campaign was built around her personality (Strong and Stable, Crush the Saboteurs, May or Corbyn) but she didn't have one - or at least not that one. She essentially went into hiding, running from debates and even interviews, and appearing nervous and possibly unwell. I have a lot of sympathy for her - she's not an extrovert and that's fine. But you don't have a campaign that writes cheques your personality can't cash.
On targeting, I am not so sure. The fact is there was a small Tory to Labour swing so the Tories lost 13 seats (and would've been worse but for Ruth Davidson). They might have stemmed those loses a bit had they more rapidly adapted to the fact that a campaign which started with huge leads had gone to porridge. But that's damage limitation - it's not the fundamental flaw of the campaign.
Agree. It is, in retrospect, slightly odd that TM ever reached the position of PM. It's not a job you'd expect someone of that personality to occupy. There have been examples in the past of taciturn or introverted leaders (Calvin Coolidge), but not that many. An keenness to engage with people seems as fundamental a quality in a Prime Minister as a keenness to run fast is in a sprinter.
May didn't do that badly in the role of PM in terms of governing, her problem was in campaigning for elections, though even there she still won most seats in 2017.
Coolidge was also a reasonable President, under whom the US economy grew and an opponent of racial discrimination and he won the 1924 Presidential election comfortably.
Heath and Brown also managed to become UK PMs with similar personalities to May.
I'm really struggling to see why the selectors have picked four seamers and one spinner. They knew the pitch was going to turn from day one, the evening dew may yield some swing but we knew for a fact that the Indian pitch would turn.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
I'm not totally sure I share that analysis, as the 2017 election was remarkable in its relative lack of focus on Brexit, and Labour's campaign surge was more related to the fact May unwisely had a manifesto covering other issues.
Also, in 2019, the modest LD recovery was more in the area of Tory remainers - stockbroker belt types.
It's also a shade churlish to say Corbyn was unloved. He was divisive, certainly. But there was a non-trivial group who felt it was a more authentic form of Labour politics - a view that struggled to survive the anti-semitism rows that followed.
Blaming May's 2017 manifesto absolves Sir Lynton Crosby of blame for possibly the most ill-directed campaigns ever. You can't parrot "strong and stable" after a U-turn on the second day. However, the crucial role of events, dear boy, events is too often overlooked.
There were two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself. London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert. Normally, these would have favoured the blue team except Theresa May had personally given 20,000 coppers their cards. That is why Theresa May lost her majority.
And we know I'm right because, well, it's me, and because Boris won in 2019 with a promise to recruit 20,000 new police officers. In general, we can see what worked for Corbyn in 2017 because CCHQ shamelessly lifted it for Boris in 2019.
There is something odd about reportage of the failure of the May election campaign. Vs 2015 she increased the Tory vote by 2.3m, a 20% increase. So the idea that she was unpopular or that she repelled voters isn't true - the opposite is.
Where the Tory campaign fell apart was its shit targeting. They did a sensational job in Scotland and started the process of nibbling away at the red wall. Their problem was that they lost a stack of seats in mainly urban areas to small majorities - Bedford, Canterbury, Colne Valley, Crewe & Nantwich, Ipswich, Keighley, Kensington, Peterborough, Stockton South, Stroud - and others by a few thousand which mainly came straight back in 2019.
So the question is less "why were the Tories so unpopular" or even "why were Labour so popular" and more "why did the Tories ground campaign fall apart?"
The increase in the Conservative vote was largely driven by UKIP's collapse at that election.
It's similar to Corbynistas saying they did so much better than Labour in elections where the Lib Dems were at double the vote share they obtained in 2017/19. You can only play the teams in front of you, of course, but it's an unconvincing argument for anyone open to the slightest bit of nuance.
May's campaign was misconceived on two fronts.
Firstly, she had a range of non-Brexit policies which hadn't been thought through or socialised with the party. So they unravelled and her party hadn't bought in and wouldn't ride to the rescue, as well as the fact it distracted from the Brexit message (a lesson learned in 2019).
Secondly, the campaign was built around her personality (Strong and Stable, Crush the Saboteurs, May or Corbyn) but she didn't have one - or at least not that one. She essentially went into hiding, running from debates and even interviews, and appearing nervous and possibly unwell. I have a lot of sympathy for her - she's not an extrovert and that's fine. But you don't have a campaign that writes cheques your personality can't cash.
On targeting, I am not so sure. The fact is there was a small Tory to Labour swing so the Tories lost 13 seats (and would've been worse but for Ruth Davidson). They might have stemmed those loses a bit had they more rapidly adapted to the fact that a campaign which started with huge leads had gone to porridge. But that's damage limitation - it's not the fundamental flaw of the campaign.
Agree. It is, in retrospect, slightly odd that TM ever reached the position of PM. It's not a job you'd expect someone of that personality to occupy. There have been examples in the past of taciturn or introverted leaders (Calvin Coolidge), but not that many. An keenness to engage with people seems as fundamental a quality in a Prime Minister as a keenness to run fast is in a sprinter.
Gordon Brown made it to PM, he had a very similar personality type to Theresa May, the difference between them is that May just about managed to stay in power after an election and Brown lost.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
I'm not totally sure I share that analysis, as the 2017 election was remarkable in its relative lack of focus on Brexit, and Labour's campaign surge was more related to the fact May unwisely had a manifesto covering other issues.
Also, in 2019, the modest LD recovery was more in the area of Tory remainers - stockbroker belt types.
It's also a shade churlish to say Corbyn was unloved. He was divisive, certainly. But there was a non-trivial group who felt it was a more authentic form of Labour politics - a view that struggled to survive the anti-semitism rows that followed.
Blaming May's 2017 manifesto absolves Sir Lynton Crosby of blame for possibly the most ill-directed campaigns ever. You can't parrot "strong and stable" after a U-turn on the second day. However, the crucial role of events, dear boy, events is too often overlooked.
There were two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself. London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert. Normally, these would have favoured the blue team except Theresa May had personally given 20,000 coppers their cards. That is why Theresa May lost her majority.
And we know I'm right because, well, it's me, and because Boris won in 2019 with a promise to recruit 20,000 new police officers. In general, we can see what worked for Corbyn in 2017 because CCHQ shamelessly lifted it for Boris in 2019.
There is something odd about reportage of the failure of the May election campaign. Vs 2015 she increased the Tory vote by 2.3m, a 20% increase. So the idea that she was unpopular or that she repelled voters isn't true - the opposite is.
Where the Tory campaign fell apart was its shit targeting. They did a sensational job in Scotland and started the process of nibbling away at the red wall. Their problem was that they lost a stack of seats in mainly urban areas to small majorities - Bedford, Canterbury, Colne Valley, Crewe & Nantwich, Ipswich, Keighley, Kensington, Peterborough, Stockton South, Stroud - and others by a few thousand which mainly came straight back in 2019.
So the question is less "why were the Tories so unpopular" or even "why were Labour so popular" and more "why did the Tories ground campaign fall apart?"
The increase in the Conservative vote was largely driven by UKIP's collapse at that election.
It's similar to Corbynistas saying they did so much better than Labour in elections where the Lib Dems were at double the vote share they obtained in 2017/19. You can only play the teams in front of you, of course, but it's an unconvincing argument for anyone open to the slightest bit of nuance.
May's campaign was misconceived on two fronts.
Firstly, she had a range of non-Brexit policies which hadn't been thought through or socialised with the party. So they unravelled and her party hadn't bought in and wouldn't ride to the rescue, as well as the fact it distracted from the Brexit message (a lesson learned in 2019).
Secondly, the campaign was built around her personality (Strong and Stable, Crush the Saboteurs, May or Corbyn) but she didn't have one - or at least not that one. She essentially went into hiding, running from debates and even interviews, and appearing nervous and possibly unwell. I have a lot of sympathy for her - she's not an extrovert and that's fine. But you don't have a campaign that writes cheques your personality can't cash.
On targeting, I am not so sure. The fact is there was a small Tory to Labour swing so the Tories lost 13 seats (and would've been worse but for Ruth Davidson). They might have stemmed those loses a bit had they more rapidly adapted to the fact that a campaign which started with huge leads had gone to porridge. But that's damage limitation - it's not the fundamental flaw of the campaign.
Agree. It is, in retrospect, slightly odd that TM ever reached the position of PM. It's not a job you'd expect someone of that personality to occupy. There have been examples in the past of taciturn or introverted leaders (Calvin Coolidge), but not that many. An keenness to engage with people seems as fundamental a quality in a Prime Minister as a keenness to run fast is in a sprinter.
It was a very odd leadership campaign that brought Theresa May to Number 10. She was the last woman standing after Boris, Gove and Leadsom self-immolated within a few days. The outgoing leader, David Cameron, had expected to remain in office over the summer. Theresa May was in place three months earlier than expected so Cameron left in July rather than October.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
I'm not totally sure I share that analysis, as the 2017 election was remarkable in its relative lack of focus on Brexit, and Labour's campaign surge was more related to the fact May unwisely had a manifesto covering other issues.
Also, in 2019, the modest LD recovery was more in the area of Tory remainers - stockbroker belt types.
It's also a shade churlish to say Corbyn was unloved. He was divisive, certainly. But there was a non-trivial group who felt it was a more authentic form of Labour politics - a view that struggled to survive the anti-semitism rows that followed.
Blaming May's 2017 manifesto absolves Sir Lynton Crosby of blame for possibly the most ill-directed campaigns ever. You can't parrot "strong and stable" after a U-turn on the second day. However, the crucial role of events, dear boy, events is too often overlooked.
There were two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself. London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert. Normally, these would have favoured the blue team except Theresa May had personally given 20,000 coppers their cards. That is why Theresa May lost her majority.
And we know I'm right because, well, it's me, and because Boris won in 2019 with a promise to recruit 20,000 new police officers. In general, we can see what worked for Corbyn in 2017 because CCHQ shamelessly lifted it for Boris in 2019.
There is something odd about reportage of the failure of the May election campaign. Vs 2015 she increased the Tory vote by 2.3m, a 20% increase. So the idea that she was unpopular or that she repelled voters isn't true - the opposite is.
Where the Tory campaign fell apart was its shit targeting. They did a sensational job in Scotland and started the process of nibbling away at the red wall. Their problem was that they lost a stack of seats in mainly urban areas to small majorities - Bedford, Canterbury, Colne Valley, Crewe & Nantwich, Ipswich, Keighley, Kensington, Peterborough, Stockton South, Stroud - and others by a few thousand which mainly came straight back in 2019.
So the question is less "why were the Tories so unpopular" or even "why were Labour so popular" and more "why did the Tories ground campaign fall apart?"
The increase in the Conservative vote was largely driven by UKIP's collapse at that election.
It's similar to Corbynistas saying they did so much better than Labour in elections where the Lib Dems were at double the vote share they obtained in 2017/19. You can only play the teams in front of you, of course, but it's an unconvincing argument for anyone open to the slightest bit of nuance.
May's campaign was misconceived on two fronts.
Firstly, she had a range of non-Brexit policies which hadn't been thought through or socialised with the party. So they unravelled and her party hadn't bought in and wouldn't ride to the rescue, as well as the fact it distracted from the Brexit message (a lesson learned in 2019).
Secondly, the campaign was built around her personality (Strong and Stable, Crush the Saboteurs, May or Corbyn) but she didn't have one - or at least not that one. She essentially went into hiding, running from debates and even interviews, and appearing nervous and possibly unwell. I have a lot of sympathy for her - she's not an extrovert and that's fine. But you don't have a campaign that writes cheques your personality can't cash.
On targeting, I am not so sure. The fact is there was a small Tory to Labour swing so the Tories lost 13 seats (and would've been worse but for Ruth Davidson). They might have stemmed those loses a bit had they more rapidly adapted to the fact that a campaign which started with huge leads had gone to porridge. But that's damage limitation - it's not the fundamental flaw of the campaign.
Agree. It is, in retrospect, slightly odd that TM ever reached the position of PM. It's not a job you'd expect someone of that personality to occupy. There have been examples in the past of taciturn or introverted leaders (Calvin Coolidge), but not that many. An keenness to engage with people seems as fundamental a quality in a Prime Minister as a keenness to run fast is in a sprinter.
It was a very odd leadership campaign that brought Theresa May to Number 10. She was the last woman standing after Boris, Gove and Leadsom self-immolated within a few days. The outgoing leader, David Cameron, had expected to remain in office over the summer. Theresa May was in place three months earlier than expected so Cameron left in July rather than October.
Indeed so. One of the final chapters of Tim Shipman’s seminal book “All Out War”, that covers the Brexit referendum, is called “Mayniacs v Leadbangers”.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
I'm really struggling to see why the selectors have picked four seamers and one spinner. They knew the pitch was going to turn from day one, the evening dew may yield some swing but we knew for a fact that the Indian pitch would turn.
Broad gone too.
Graeme Swann is on the commentary team for Indian TV, maybe we can persuade him to do some nets at the innings break?
That's going to be the line for what, another couple of weeks? The UK second dose programme has begun to warm up now and aiui the government is looking to do around 3m second and first doses each per week and that's what the infrastructure is able to handle.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
The 'Tories control the press' argument was weakening 25 years ago and is as dead as the dead tree press now. I suppose the BBC, Facebook, Twitter, MSNBC etc are all boosting the Tories too?
Interesting goings on in Scotland. As Nicola's popularity is sky-high (I believe she outperforms Johnson even amongst the English) it's difficult to see Alex as other than a wrecking ball.
I heard one of the nine (or is it twelve) women who spoke against him at his trial and she said the idea that twelve women would get together and invent a story that he assaulted each of them is ridiculous. I have to say I agree. We're not talking about a bunch of American schoolgirls wanting to raise their twitter profile.
The one certainty is that he is damaging those who want independence. For what? To clear his name? There is no chance of that. There's nothing he can do to improve his reputation even if he damages Nicola's. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say it's been cooked up by some English ultra unionists and Salmond's either being paid or he's a very foolish bitter man.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
The number of Covid vaccines administered in the UK has fallen by over a third in the last week as ministers warned of a short-term dip in supply coupled with stockpiling to ensure people get second doses within the recommended 12-week limit.
The latest data showed 192,341 people received a first jab on Monday, the second-lowest daily total since 17 January – taking the number of people in Britain who have had an initial Covid vaccination to 17.9 million.
On Sunday the number of vaccinations was 141,719, the lowest figure since the UK daily count began on 10 January. Taken together, the total for the past two days is 35% lower than the equivalent figures last week.
Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said in a radio interview the country could expect “a quieter week this week” for vaccinations because of supply pressure but that the rollout would bounce back next month. “We’re going to have some really bumper weeks in March.”
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
There is definitely a nugget of a point in here, insofar as a party leader's public perception matters hugely and how they are known in the press is a big part of that. May's failure to brand herself as "Theresa" probably wasn't her biggest problem, but it might have been a symptom.
However, I can't see that the case is proven that the press are deliberately biased one way or the other in terms of how they dish those names out. In particular, I think claiming that "the Iron Lady" is a good example of a "cuddly nickname" is a bit of a stretch.
Maybe Labour need to focus more on finding a leader with an uncommon two syllable first name? Sadiq Khan is an obvious example, but possibly too tempting to just refer to him by his surname. Thangam Debbonaire to the rescue!
I'm really struggling to see why the selectors have picked four seamers and one spinner. They knew the pitch was going to turn from day one, the evening dew may yield some swing but we knew for a fact that the Indian pitch would turn.
Broad gone too.
Graeme Swann is on the commentary team for Indian TV, maybe we can persuade him to do some nets at the innings break?
About that winning the toss gives an unfair advantage in India...
... In the last 50 years, only the 6th time that England have lasted fewer than 50 overs in the first innings after winning the toss and choosing to bat...
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's just the same feeble, pathetic argument that French hack was advancing in The Graun a few days ago. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Meanwhile, the EU's best performers, Malta and Denmark, have got ahead in the former instance by going around the EU procurement scheme and buying extra supplies at a higher price, and in the latter case by... delaying the second doses so that more people can have their first ones.
All of this is, of course, spin to try to deflect from exactly how pear-shaped things have gone on the continent. The German Government is now worrying about a third wave as well, whilst the better part of a million AZ doses sit uselessly in fridges because it's done such a good job in persuading people they're crap. Local leaders in parts of France are now starting to talk about lockdowns because they're labouring under high infection rates, and the country has an even worse anti-vaxxer problem to boot. It is now reported that Belgium has had to postpone rollout to its over 65s to the end of March (when, with a fair wind, the UK will be in touching distance of getting first doses into the arms of all the over 50s.)
Not all of this is the fault of the Commission, of course, but as we all appreciate its contribution has not exactly helped matters.
There does seem evidence that Cummings going and Allegra and Carrie's influence has has quite a positive effect on Boris and there is little doubt he has upped his game
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
My new neighbour is a unionist lawyer from Aberdeen. She says she is an exile from the SNP. She is passionate about it.
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
I get why they would look to a figure which looks more positive in comparison, but it seems awfully short sighted - while the supply issues will go away, they surely know that given the UK's already done so many first doses it will very quickly overtake on second doses soon. So why introduce that as the measure for success when it will quickly be overtaken?
I'll leave aside the continuing implication that the first does is basically meaningless for protection.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
My new neighbour is a unionist lawyer from Aberdeen. She says she is an exile from the SNP. She is passionate about it.
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
My new neighbour is a unionist lawyer from Aberdeen. She says she is an exile from the SNP. She is passionate about it.
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
Think I'd be on the not resign side of the bet
Right. I'll take that side of the bet. She thinks Sturgeon will resign. If I win I'll donate it to the local LibDems.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's very fleeting too, the UK second dose programme is going to race ahead over the next two to three weeks because around 2m second doses are due and by the end of March around 4m are due. That lead will last maybe a other 10-20 days and then the UK will once again be looking into the rear view mirror for that metric. What's important for us is that our dosing schedule now has hard data proving it is the right thing to do and once Pfizer second jabs are done for the 10-12 week gap recipients I'm sure the government will track their immune responses compared to the standard 3-4 week gap. With AZ the number neutralising antibodies is around 50-60% higher and the expert I've spoken to has said this could be the case for the mRNA vaccines as well so the longer gap for Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines could lead to better long term immunity, especially against variants.
"looking into the rear view mirror"
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
Oh dear me. Terrible umpiring again from the third umpire. That decision was made far too quickly — you need to look at at least 2 or 3 replays, not just the first one that comes along. And it could have been zoomed in as well.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's just the same feeble, pathetic argument that French hack was advancing in The Graun a few days ago. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Meanwhile, the EU's best performers, Malta and Denmark, have got ahead in the former instance by going around the EU procurement scheme and buying extra supplies at a higher price, and in the latter case by... delaying the second doses so that more people can have their first ones.
All of this is, of course, spin to try to deflect from exactly how pear-shaped things have gone on the continent. The German Government is now worrying about a third wave as well, whilst the better part of a million AZ doses sit uselessly in fridges because it's done such a good job in persuading people they're crap. Local leaders in parts of France are now starting to talk about lockdowns because they're labouring under high infection rates, and the country has an even worse anti-vaxxer problem to boot. It is now reported that Belgium has had to postpone rollout to its over 65s to the end of March (when, with a fair wind, the UK will be in touching distance of getting first doses into the arms of all the over 50s.)
Not all of this is the fault of the Commission, of course, but as we all appreciate its contribution has not exactly helped matters.
It gets worse. Ursula is taking action against EU countries exercising border controls to stop their populations dying off in droves in April / May.
Brussels has put six EU member states on notice that their tight Covid border restrictions, including exit and entry bans, should be lifted over fears of a wider breakdown in the bloc’s free movement of people and goods.
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary and Sweden have been given 10 days to respond to the European commission’s concerns that they have breached commonly agreed coronavirus guidelines.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh, have we had some pretending that calling Boris by his first name means people like him or go easy on him, or are duped somehow? I always enjoy that nonsense.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Only people who know him well call him by his first name.
The one certainty is that he is damaging those who want independence.
Lots of Nats seem to take the view that it is Nicola who is damaging for independence. They claim she does plenty of huffing and puffing about it, but that's all she has ever done, and they reckon she has no intention of doing otherwise.
Far too quickly. Its quite common for one replay to apparently show something, and multiple other replays to show something else that overrule it.
No matter how obvious the first replay is, you need to look at 2 or 3 others to confirm it. That has always been almost automatic in all the other matches Ive seen.
Comparing to a country that has deliberately delayed the second doses. How low can you go?
It's just the same feeble, pathetic argument that French hack was advancing in The Graun a few days ago. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Meanwhile, the EU's best performers, Malta and Denmark, have got ahead in the former instance by going around the EU procurement scheme and buying extra supplies at a higher price, and in the latter case by... delaying the second doses so that more people can have their first ones.
All of this is, of course, spin to try to deflect from exactly how pear-shaped things have gone on the continent. The German Government is now worrying about a third wave as well, whilst the better part of a million AZ doses sit uselessly in fridges because it's done such a good job in persuading people they're crap. Local leaders in parts of France are now starting to talk about lockdowns because they're labouring under high infection rates, and the country has an even worse anti-vaxxer problem to boot. It is now reported that Belgium has had to postpone rollout to its over 65s to the end of March (when, with a fair wind, the UK will be in touching distance of getting first doses into the arms of all the over 50s.)
Not all of this is the fault of the Commission, of course, but as we all appreciate its contribution has not exactly helped matters.
Ultimately the Commission has shown that, in a difficult situation, it will reach for the same nonsense and diversionary tactics of any government, even if that comes with negative consequences down the line.
It's part of growing into governmental status I suppose. Or just the natural state of almost every institution and organisation to, in the end, see any criticism as an attack on the body as a whole, and so deny, deny, deny, obfuscate, deny, deny, scapegoat, and then deny.
The reason the Tories, win elections is simple, thay always control the narrative, through their friends in the media, the only time labour won in over 40 yrs was when the Murdoch empire, decided to back Blair in a big way, Its inconceivable to think that Labour have had awful leaders, and the Tories great ones, it is just how they are portrayed, indeed you could say Kinnock was a good and very courageous leader, but again was vilified in the press. It's all done subtlety as well, calling Thatcher, Maggie, or the Iron Lady, or Boris, what labour leader ever has been called by their first name, and so now the press have started on Starmer, what a shock, when in reality he is head and shoulders above Johnson in most areas politically, if the murdoch empire suddenly swung behind Starmer and labour, I would be all over labour to win the next election, given a fair hearing I believe the Tories are ripe for taking,until then to the ultimate detriment of the country, we are stuck with Boris, or Rishi, or whatever cuddly name, the press wish to call them
Er, the 'right-wing media' that gave Thatcher her famous title was a Soviet communist called Yuri Gavrilov, who in 1976 coined the term to attack her in Red Star, the state newspaper of the Red Army...
It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.
He was clearly smeared, particularly around the racist allegations. I`m not convinced that the Salisbury thing was a massive factor. Corbyn`s lack of patriotism was a factor to be sure but for the main reason why LP did so badly in 2019 you have to turn to the gridlock in Parliament and the Brexit blocking.
Yes, I agree. "Get Brexit Done!" and the frustration of the public (inc lots of Remainers) with the impasse dwarfed all other factors. My assessment is that Corbyn cost 25 seats, i.e. he turned a clear defeat into a landslide loss. But the election was unwinnable for Labour under any leader. It really was just about the Con margin. I also, contrary to many on my side, think Johnson was a vote winner, esp in the places that mattered.
Welcome to the mickydroy but the idea that Murdoch or Tories control the press was ridiculous a decade or two ago. Its preposterous today in the age of Twitter, Facebook, websites and everything else.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
And Gordon always got 'Gordon' - never 'Brown'. Not sure that did him any good. Not sure it helped for Boris or Maggie or David or John or Theresa (not sure how common those last three were) either.
Oh yes remember the cringe of "not Flash just Gordon".
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
For their own sakes I hope the European states don't have a third wave - most seem to have reducing (compared to peak) or stable, albeit higher than they'd like, case numbers, and if they have persuaded their populations they have to wait for the 'good stuff' when it comes to vaccines, even the improving supply situation will take time to assist.
At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution. Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You're the one who brought it up!
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
You said:
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
This is ridiculous.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
As Bluest knows very well, the only people who could vote for Jezbollah lived in his constituency. In any other constituency you can only vote for the candidates listed. The party they represent or the leader of that party is not a legal consideration.
I heard a charming 'Junckerism'. When he was asked by a member of his staff if it was going to be possible to deal with Trump he replied "You can only dance with the girls in the ballroom"
I downloaded the Alex Salmond evidence documents yesterday as some light reading. I have compared the unredacted and redacted ministerial code submissions. The only changes were to remove references to 2 meetings to discuss the handling of the allegations against AS, with the redactions having no relation at all to the accusers identity. I understand the redactions were made after a request from the Crown Office, but I do not understand on what basis that objection was made or agreed to.
I assume the committee cannot now ask AS about these meetings because the sections have been redacted, and AS cannot talk about them in front of the committee.
This really stinks. Parliaments should be able to dig into things like this without fear or favour, otherwise future governments with really unpleasant leaders could use the precedent to cover up anything. I am amazed that the committee are being so supine.
I have to credit full marks for your observation and to be honest, irrespective of the Independence debate, the SNP have the air of decay and corruption that often comes with dominant power
My wife is very sad to observe the state of Scottish politics and does not recognise the nasty and toxic culture which has no part in the open generous nature of Scots
I have no idea how this will effect the polling but maybe Scots will look again before empowering the SNP yet again in May
And vote for whom instead? Remember that: 1. The hooey about Salmond is a fabulous bit of soap opera but isn't seen as politics 2. The SNP have quite a strong record to point to when asking for re-election 3. Their various policy failings compare reasonably well against the policy failings of the alternative Tory or Labour options
Politics isn't about one single party in isolation. Yes there is a smell about some of these SNP shenanigans, but if Big G suggests the solution to corruption is to vote Tory then hold my coffee whilst I wee myself laughing. The worst case scenario for the SNP is to be reduced to a minority administration.
The best case for the union is tactical voting and I would do so in Scotland
For the union? Sure. People also need to vote for services which is what the complaints about the SNP usually relate to. On that front if you accept the allegation that they are inept at best and corrupt at worst then your alternatives are a Tory Party openly and brazenly corrupt, a Labour Party busy suing itself in a similar he said she said "scandal" or smaller parties.
I get why they would look to a figure which looks more positive in comparison, but it seems awfully short sighted - while the supply issues will go away, they surely know that given the UK's already done so many first doses it will very quickly overtake on second doses soon. So why introduce that as the measure for success when it will quickly be overtaken?
I'll leave aside the continuing implication that the first does is basically meaningless for protection.
The EU has no other shit to fling at us. And shit-flinging is the only metric they have by which they are seen to be "doing something".
They started their fight against Covid with ill-conceived penny-pinching on vaccine supplies, and have gone down hill thereafter. The Brexit campaign wouldn't have dared to devise a campaign about a sclerotic EU as negative as the reality has played out.
Comments
The last Opinium poll showed now Brexit has been done Labour were back ahead in Red Wall seats the Tories gained in 2019, though the Tories were still comfortably ahead in Tory holds in 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000sld8/tearlach-ceannadachcharles-kennedy-a-good-man-speaking
BTW: The interviews in Gaelic give the impression that most people in the Highlands speak the language. Sadly, not been true for a long old time. As a community language now restricted to the islands and in decline there.
Rather sobering to reflect, that after the horrors of the 2015 campaign, Blackford still occupies his old seat.
The Conservative candidate for Newcastle upon Tyne North was from Bedford with zero links to Newcastle. Why would I vote for him?
Least bad in a trinary contest with Corbyn and Swinson.
Opinion polls are not the gospel truth, though you take them as such. 🙄
I wish I'd taken you on that now. 😢
Apparently OK for Scottish Govt to ignore votes at Holyrood but all hell to break loose if UK Govt similarly ignores. Go figure.
Don't think they ever had a chance in this match unless Root hit another first innings double century.
The programme reminds us how sharp Kennedy was but does not shy away from his decline into alcoholism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000sld8/tearlach-ceannadachcharles-kennedy-a-good-man-speaking
8. Caddick
9. Mullally
10. Tufnell
11. Giddins
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-tour-of-england-1999-62074/england-vs-new-zealand-4th-test-63844/full-scorecard
Business, Parliament, the public.
We're out of the Article 50 extension quagmire, we're out of the worst and most incoherent Parliament of my lifetime. We have some certainty now about what's going on and people can invest on that basis and move on.
He vacillates
We vaccinate
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-allow-proxy-voting-in-local-elections-for-those-self-isolating-with-coronavirus
Now businesses have certainty. For some businesses, which will be much magnified in Tweets here, that may not be good - sucks for them. But for the rest, the uncertainty has been removed and they can move on now.
To divide Diabetes into "Complicated" and "Uncomplicated" without considering range of complications, or by Type I and Type II (which is significant), is very questionable.
Whole thing looks rather shaky imo.
It's quite possible to simultaneously hold the view that Salmond is a loathsome creep, and also that he has been shafted by Sturgeon et al in a way that bends and breaks the rules.
In fact it is quiet plausible to believe that Sturgeon knew all about Salmond's unsavoury predilections but was very happy to support him when it suited her. Indeed, he actively promoted her career. Moreover the fact that he was supported by such a prominent woman all those years probably gave pause to other women who might otherwise have come forward.
So, if you believe that, it's very easy to understand why he might feel a touch aggrieved when she refused all support when he found himself in a tight spot.
But, of course, to true believers neither Salmond or Sturgeon can be held to have any faults, until the Party dictates otherwise.
Life in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Scotland.
It's similar to Corbynistas saying they did so much better than Labour in elections where the Lib Dems were at double the vote share they obtained in 2017/19. You can only play the teams in front of you, of course, but it's an unconvincing argument for anyone open to the slightest bit of nuance.
May's campaign was misconceived on two fronts.
Firstly, she had a range of non-Brexit policies which hadn't been thought through or socialised with the party. So they unravelled and her party hadn't bought in and wouldn't ride to the rescue, as well as the fact it distracted from the Brexit message (a lesson learned in 2019).
Secondly, the campaign was built around her personality (Strong and Stable, Crush the Saboteurs, May or Corbyn) but she didn't have one - or at least not that one. She essentially went into hiding, running from debates and even interviews, and appearing nervous and possibly unwell. I have a lot of sympathy for her - she's not an extrovert and that's fine. But you don't have a campaign that writes cheques your personality can't cash.
On targeting, I am not so sure. The fact is there was a small Tory to Labour swing so the Tories lost 13 seats (and would've been worse but for Ruth Davidson). They might have stemmed those loses a bit had they more rapidly adapted to the fact that a campaign which started with huge leads had gone to porridge. But that's damage limitation - it's not the fundamental flaw of the campaign.
Admittedly he's batting, but surely this can never have happened before ?
(edit... the second review was Kohli's. Sanity is restored.)
It is, in retrospect, slightly odd that TM ever reached the position of PM. It's not a job you'd expect someone of that personality to occupy. There have been examples in the past of taciturn or introverted leaders (Calvin Coolidge), but not that many. An keenness to engage with people seems as fundamental a quality in a Prime Minister as a keenness to run fast is in a sprinter.
Coolidge was also a reasonable President, under whom the US economy grew and an opponent of racial discrimination and he won the 1924 Presidential election comfortably.
Heath and Brown also managed to become UK PMs with similar personalities to May.
Broad gone too.
Second vaccinations are starting this week. It won't take long for the UK to "catch up".
All out in the Cricket.
I heard one of the nine (or is it twelve) women who spoke against him at his trial and she said the idea that twelve women would get together and invent a story that he assaulted each of them is ridiculous. I have to say I agree. We're not talking about a bunch of American schoolgirls wanting to raise their twitter profile.
The one certainty is that he is damaging those who want independence. For what? To clear his name? There is no chance of that. There's nothing he can do to improve his reputation even if he damages Nicola's. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say it's been cooked up by some English ultra unionists and Salmond's either being paid or he's a very foolish bitter man.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1364538085011292165?s=20
The latest data showed 192,341 people received a first jab on Monday, the second-lowest daily total since 17 January – taking the number of people in Britain who have had an initial Covid vaccination to 17.9 million.
On Sunday the number of vaccinations was 141,719, the lowest figure since the UK daily count began on 10 January. Taken together, the total for the past two days is 35% lower than the equivalent figures last week.
Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said in a radio interview the country could expect “a quieter week this week” for vaccinations because of supply pressure but that the rollout would bounce back next month. “We’re going to have some really bumper weeks in March.”
However, I can't see that the case is proven that the press are deliberately biased one way or the other in terms of how they dish those names out. In particular, I think claiming that "the Iron Lady" is a good example of a "cuddly nickname" is a bit of a stretch.
Maybe Labour need to focus more on finding a leader with an uncommon two syllable first name? Sadiq Khan is an obvious example, but possibly too tempting to just refer to him by his surname. Thangam Debbonaire to the rescue!
... In the last 50 years, only the 6th time that England have lasted fewer than 50 overs in the first innings after winning the toss and choosing to bat...
Meanwhile, the EU's best performers, Malta and Denmark, have got ahead in the former instance by going around the EU procurement scheme and buying extra supplies at a higher price, and in the latter case by... delaying the second doses so that more people can have their first ones.
All of this is, of course, spin to try to deflect from exactly how pear-shaped things have gone on the continent. The German Government is now worrying about a third wave as well, whilst the better part of a million AZ doses sit uselessly in fridges because it's done such a good job in persuading people they're crap. Local leaders in parts of France are now starting to talk about lockdowns because they're labouring under high infection rates, and the country has an even worse anti-vaxxer problem to boot. It is now reported that Belgium has had to postpone rollout to its over 65s to the end of March (when, with a fair wind, the UK will be in touching distance of getting first doses into the arms of all the over 50s.)
Not all of this is the fault of the Commission, of course, but as we all appreciate its contribution has not exactly helped matters.
As for calling people by nicknames or firstnames like "Maggie" or "Boris" - does "Keith" not count for Starmer?
https://twitter.com/chessninja/status/1353390984911089666
She has just offered me £100 at evens that Sturgeon will resign this year. Is that value? I know nothing about it. The fact that emotion is ruling her head suggests it is.
The good news is that she's into betting. The bad news is that if she wins this bet, she's told me she will donate it to the local Tories. I think she may be winding me up.
I'll leave aside the continuing implication that the first does is basically meaningless for protection.
sadly you are one of a few posters on here who have lost their minds on this - what do you call it "Brexit Derangement Syndrome". Shame, because otherwise you post some interesting stuff.
That said, it really is a bit different for him. Not because it means people will like him or go easy on him, it's perfectly easy to condemn Boris and call him Boris, but I often get governments update from people where, in a professional capacity, when it is verbal, they will indeed say 'Boris announced' etc rather than the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson, and that is pretty unusual. I personally say Keir for Keir Starmer much of the time, but I don't know that that is widespread.
Brussels has put six EU member states on notice that their tight Covid border restrictions, including exit and entry bans, should be lifted over fears of a wider breakdown in the bloc’s free movement of people and goods.
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary and Sweden have been given 10 days to respond to the European commission’s concerns that they have breached commonly agreed coronavirus guidelines.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/23/eu-tells-six-countries-to-lift-covid-border-restrictions
‘Boris’ is his second name.
No matter how obvious the first replay is, you need to look at 2 or 3 others to confirm it. That has always been almost automatic in all the other matches Ive seen.
It's part of growing into governmental status I suppose. Or just the natural state of almost every institution and organisation to, in the end, see any criticism as an attack on the body as a whole, and so deny, deny, deny, obfuscate, deny, deny, scapegoat, and then deny.
Cameron was Dave not David.
Blair was Tone as much as Tony.
Then there was Ed and it must be news to our own Jezziah that only Tories get known by nicknames or firstnames, even before we come to Keith.
Somewhat brave.
The bacchanalia will be strong.
They started their fight against Covid with ill-conceived penny-pinching on vaccine supplies, and have gone down hill thereafter. The Brexit campaign wouldn't have dared to devise a campaign about a sclerotic EU as negative as the reality has played out.