Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
I also heard he used his pipe as a means of gaining time to think when asked a question - fiddling with it to cover awkward silence as he considered his response.
Who was it who said that whenever they were asked a question they found troubling or awkward to answer their first tactic was to respond by repeating the same question back at the questioner very slowly, in order to gain time.
Mmm, let's see now, who was it who said that whenever they were asked a question they found troubling or awkward to answer their first tactic was to respond by repeating the same question back at the questioner very slowly, in order to gain time?
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
I hate it when a fellow Yorkshireman pretends to be a man of the people when they are clearly not.
I cannot believe the electorate was so gullible to believe a person who went to an elite school and Oxbridge was a man of the people.
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
I also heard he used his pipe as a means of gaining time to think when asked a question - fiddling with it to cover awkward silence as he considered his response.
Who was it who said that whenever they were asked a question they found troubling or awkward to answer their first tactic was to respond by repeating the same question back at the questioner very slowly, in order to gain time.
Mmm, let's see now, who was it who said that whenever they were asked a question they found troubling or awkward to answer their first tactic was to respond by repeating the same question back at the questioner very slowly, in order to gain time?
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
I also heard he used his pipe as a means of gaining time to think when asked a question - fiddling with it to cover awkward silence as he considered his response.
Who was it who said that whenever they were asked a question they found troubling or awkward to answer their first tactic was to respond by repeating the same question back at the questioner very slowly, in order to gain time.
The number of people who do that in timed tests and exams is always frustrating, given how much time it wastes.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
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.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
Of course Wilson used it skilfully. As with the pipe. (Which it is rumoured he didn't smoke in private). So Oxford's youngest Don could spin some Yorkshire wisdom as 'arold from 'uddersfield.
He was a brandy and cigars man in private, pint and pipe in public.....
I hate it when a fellow Yorkshireman pretends to be a man of the people when they are clearly not.
I cannot believe the electorate was so gullible to believe a person who went to an elite school and Oxbridge was a man of the people.
However, PBers are not representative of the wider electorate. So we aren't expecting to see you walking your whippet any time soon.
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.
Your 2nd para is observant and intelligent.
You mean not all my paras are observant and intelligent?
Damn it!
- It was my way of avoiding laying into your softhead 1st para. I'm not doing tetch today.
Just out of interest, how many and what "left wing" media do you consume?
Full disclosure of my media habits - I do scan the Graun now and again. Otherwise its The Times, Beeb - R4 Today in particular, er PB. Oh and The Field which so far has maintained as far as I can determine a scrupulously neutral political position.
My media is Times on a Saturday, BBC website, CH4 news, PB.com, podcasts selected quite randomly and with no particular angle, plus Owen Jones twitter and agitprop for modern metro left.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Thanks. Not a million miles different between us. And you're of the left - easy to see why people complain of the "right wing media" when those of the left don't primarily, or perhaps at all consume left wing media (OJ, etc aside).
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Its funny how many on the left are obsessed over the fact that Boris isn't Boris's first name.
I don't recall many Tories criticising Gordon on the fact that Gordon wasn't his first name.
Indeed its surprisingly common for Prime Ministers given first name not to be their actual first name - especially involving those related to the name James.
ydoethur is not on the left.
He was noting that it is not his first name, I suspect Philip was thinking more generally of people who get anxious about the use of Boris, and specifically if they are anxious that it is not his 'real' name.
Yes, I know, but if there are people on the left genuinely agitated by that aspect, they too are missing the point about the "Boris" brand. The fact it's his middle name is neither here nor there.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
Well obviously opening schools will increase the transmission risk. Kids have not been vaccinated.
The question is whether this is on balance a sensible risk, and whether mitigation is possible. Masks are a reasonable mitigation, and required in other contexts, as well as being social normality now.
I would naturally take the stance and conclusions of the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt, but at the very least it does seem a bit strange to state, as she is quoted as doing, that 'make whatever claims [Salmond] wants to make, say whatever he wants to say, and bring whatever evidence he thinks he has there' when the whole argument on this appears to be him stating that he is not allowed to do that, even if she is right that she has had no input on that decision.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
That's a pretty clear indication that government messaging in favour of masks earlier last year might have had a very positive effect. Shame they messaged in the opposite direction.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
I'm not that surprised. Most (any? not sure the age range asked) of those asked will not be secondary school pupils, so little direct impact. For those with secondary school age children, competing interests of their child having to wear a mask/being at lower risk because everyone else has to wear a mask.
"Unable to social distance" is also a little vague. I'm not even sure whether it means within classrooms necessarily - I doubt you'd get enough kids in most classrooms at an acceptable distance, so probably, but not explicit. You might get different numbers if you said, for example, all day, except for break time, which might perhaps be the case in many places?
Just googled Novara Media using the search term, er, "Novara media".
Of the pinned tweets on the first search results page, two of the three are about Israel/Palestinians.
And people wonder why the "right wing" media dominates.
So you are saying that lots of people are interested in the issue 🤔...
Well if you google novara media you will see their tweets. Are lots of people interested? Are we on here? Israel thousands of miles away? Is there anything else going on atm which might relegate the issue somewhat for Brits or indeed anyone?
Its funny how many on the left are obsessed over the fact that Boris isn't Boris's first name.
I don't recall many Tories criticising Gordon on the fact that Gordon wasn't his first name.
Indeed its surprisingly common for Prime Ministers given first name not to be their actual first name - especially involving those related to the name James.
ydoethur is not on the left.
He was noting that it is not his first name, I suspect Philip was thinking more generally of people who get anxious about the use of Boris, and specifically if they are anxious that it is not his 'real' name.
Yes, I know, but if there are people on the left genuinely agitated by that aspect, they too are missing the point about the "Boris" brand. The fact it's his middle name is neither here nor there.
Fwiw though, my recollection is of a good deal of fuss on pb about Gordon Brown and, from the other side, George Osborne, not using their given first names (which used to be a fairly common practice).
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.
Paging Philip_Thompson. He can tell you how he didn't vote for a genocide abetter when he voted for a genocide abetter.
And now she's been raised to the Lords by the current prime minister, without a peep from him (or the other Johnson lovers on here).
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
My surgery has just announced that those who got their first Pfizer jab on 20th Dec will get their second one on 4th March.
My wife and I had our first Pfizer vaccinations on Saturday 23rd January and have received a text to attend the same venue on Sunday 7th March for our second, which is just a day over six weeks.
I am not an expert on vaccination distribution but if those having received their first doses now need their second, then surely the supply for first doses must be reduced
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
Are we still forgetting the weekend effect on the reporting? Its been clear for weeks that Monday and Tuesdays reported vaccinations are for Saturday and Sunday respectively. Wed (i.e. today) reflects Monday figures and is always bigger than the last two reported days...
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.
Sounds like sheer nonsense.
Prior to my recent visits to the the Vicar of Bath's blog, I'd have thought so too.
That seems more a litany of things to show that she has overpromised on when things will happen, rather than that she has no actual intention of seeking Sindy. That is, that she is not effective enough, rather than duplicitous
It tends to be the posts that follow Campbell's headers that reveal the true mood. My take on these is that the majority cannot wait to be rid of Sturgeon (and presumably replace her with Salmond).
I'm no nationalist and have only been frequenting the blog of late to garner information about the third world political shenanigans that are otherwise going on.
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.
I think there have been quite a few introverted leaders. Introverts aren't necessarily BAD at interacting with groups, being spontaneous and so on. They just find it difficult and tiring, whereas extroverts LOVE it.
The key is recognising it, working on it, and switching it on when you need to. You won't enjoy it, but you do it because you have to do it. And May could do it when pushed - she wasn't socially inept, could speak well, and could even pull off a little planned bit of fun such as her little conference dance thing. She's not the only one - I am pretty sure Obama is an introvert - a great communicator, but very measured.
Ditto, extroverts have to switch on their cooler, more measured side and switch off the spontaneity when required (something Johnson struggles with and Trump couldn't do at all).
I'm cautious about saying this as there may be genuine health reasons etc. But May needed someone nasty enough and respected enough in 2017 to take her into a room and yell, "FFS, Theresa - I know it's not fun, but think tits and teeth, play the game, stand on a soap box, face down a Corbynite or two, and in three weeks it'll all be a horrible memory and you'll have a sizeable majority to force your deal through". I don't know if it didn't happen or she didn't listen, but it did create a particularly horrible mismatch between the campaign theme and the lived reality of her campaign.
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
My surgery has just announced that those who got their first Pfizer jab on 20th Dec will get their second one on 4th March.
My wife and I had our first Pfizer vaccinations on Saturday 23rd January and have received a text to attend the same venue on Sunday 7th March for our second, which is just a day over six weeks.
I am not an expert on vaccination distribution but if those having received their first doses now need their second, then surely the supply for first doses must be reduced
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
Well obviously opening schools will increase the transmission risk. Kids have not been vaccinated.
The question is whether this is on balance a sensible risk, and whether mitigation is possible. Masks are a reasonable mitigation, and required in other contexts, as well as being social normality now.
As suggested by Selebian, the question is a little vague.
On it being a social normality, it might be for going to the shops and getting your haircut (when allowed) - I wonder how long that will last - but I won't accept it as a new normal for anything else. Want me to go to the office? No masks. Want me to go to the pub? No masks.
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
Well obviously opening schools will increase the transmission risk. Kids have not been vaccinated.
The question is whether this is on balance a sensible risk, and whether mitigation is possible. Masks are a reasonable mitigation, and required in other contexts, as well as being social normality now.
As suggested by Selebian, the question is a little vague.
On it being a social normality, it might be for going to the shops and getting your haircut (when allowed) - I wonder how long that will last - but I won't accept it as a new normal for anything else. Want me to go to the office? No masks. Want me to go to the pub? No masks.
I'm now intrigued at the thought of drinking a pint in a mask.
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...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
Impossible to measure, but it's indisputable that the press is worth x seats to the Cons in most elections, where x is not a tiny number. Blair did a deal and so avoided being drenched in shit but this was the exception to the rule (of x).
How big is x? As I say, unmeasurable, but as a sub-rule of thumb to the main rule above, we can safely say that the size of x is positively correlated to how left wing the Labour leader is perceived to be.
Important technical nuance (since I know you are red hot on such) -
If a Labour loses by, say, 100 seats it doesn't mean x = 100. They didn't lose by 100 only or even mainly because of press smearing. They lost mainly because the public are sub-optimally positioned with their politics. But the smearing contributed.
Want numbers?
Ok, at GE19, Labour lost by 162 to the Cons and of that, x was ... hmm ... 75?
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
Well obviously opening schools will increase the transmission risk. Kids have not been vaccinated.
The question is whether this is on balance a sensible risk, and whether mitigation is possible. Masks are a reasonable mitigation, and required in other contexts, as well as being social normality now.
As suggested by Selebian, the question is a little vague.
On it being a social normality, it might be for going to the shops and getting your haircut (when allowed) - I wonder how long that will last - but I won't accept it as a new normal for anything else. Want me to go to the office? No masks. Want me to go to the pub? No masks.
I'm now intrigued at the thought of drinking a pint in a mask.
Foe some people, the term "Emergency Induction Port" is relevant here:
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for 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.
I think there have been quite a few introverted leaders. Introverts aren't necessarily BAD at interacting with groups, being spontaneous and so on. They just find it difficult and tiring, whereas extroverts LOVE it.
The key is recognising it, working on it, and switching it on when you need to. You won't enjoy it, but you do it because you have to do it. And May could do it when pushed - she wasn't socially inept, could speak well, and could even pull off a little planned bit of fun such as her little conference dance thing. She's not the only one - I am pretty sure Obama is an introvert - a great communicator, but very measured.
Ditto, extroverts have to switch on their cooler, more measured side and switch off the spontaneity when required (something Johnson struggles with and Trump couldn't do at all).
I'm cautious about saying this as there may be genuine health reasons etc. But May needed someone nasty enough and respected enough in 2017 to take her into a room and yell, "FFS, Theresa - I know it's not fun, but think tits and teeth, play the game, stand on a soap box, face down a Corbynite or two, and in three weeks it'll all be a horrible memory and you'll have a sizeable majority to force your deal through". I don't know if it didn't happen or she didn't listen, but it did create a particularly horrible mismatch between the campaign theme and the lived reality of her campaign.
Theresa May's African tour was the vehicle for her media training: interacting with strangers and even a little dancing in safe surroundings away from the British media.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
Well obviously opening schools will increase the transmission risk. Kids have not been vaccinated.
The question is whether this is on balance a sensible risk, and whether mitigation is possible. Masks are a reasonable mitigation, and required in other contexts, as well as being social normality now.
As suggested by Selebian, the question is a little vague.
On it being a social normality, it might be for going to the shops and getting your haircut (when allowed) - I wonder how long that will last - but I won't accept it as a new normal for anything else. Want me to go to the office? No masks. Want me to go to the pub? No masks.
I'm now intrigued at the thought of drinking a pint in a mask.
Foe some people, the term "Emergency Induction Port" is relevant here:
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
Well obviously opening schools will increase the transmission risk. Kids have not been vaccinated.
The question is whether this is on balance a sensible risk, and whether mitigation is possible. Masks are a reasonable mitigation, and required in other contexts, as well as being social normality now.
As suggested by Selebian, the question is a little vague.
On it being a social normality, it might be for going to the shops and getting your haircut (when allowed) - I wonder how long that will last - but I won't accept it as a new normal for anything else. Want me to go to the office? No masks. Want me to go to the pub? No masks.
I'm now intrigued at the thought of drinking a pint in a mask.
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
My surgery has just announced that those who got their first Pfizer jab on 20th Dec will get their second one on 4th March.
My wife and I had our first Pfizer vaccinations on Saturday 23rd January and have received a text to attend the same venue on Sunday 7th March for our second, which is just a day over six weeks.
I am not an expert on vaccination distribution but if those having received their first doses now need their second, then surely the supply for first doses must be reduced
Or am I missing something
I reckon most of the Pfizer is now being stockpiled for second doses now.
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.
LOL. Reading between the lines Max looks to have more detailed and perhaps professional knowledge of the vaccination campaigns than anyone else on here. He also posts the most factual and, with hindsight, accurate assessments of progress we get. To claim he has lost his mind over this shows a profound ignorance on your part.
I don't doubt he knows more than I do, but I would think the same about a German who said to me "hey we're looking at Britain in the rear view mirror on the deaths per million metric"
Very telling that you have no conception of what I'm talking about, but it's natural that British people remain obsessed with Brexit, when the rest of the world moved on a few years ago.
You're bringing brexit into this, the commission is making these duff comparisons. As for the deaths per million measure, I've said many, many times that Germany have had a much better time of it and I think it would be fair to make that comparison so the UK government learns from all of the terrible mistakes it has made.
That's my interest in this, that we all learn from each other's best practices. The UK has got a lot of hard work to do and a lot to learn from best cases in Europe and APAC to ensure that we never have the same issues again and another ~150k people don't die unnecessarily. I think the EU commission and European governments have got a lot to learn from the UK's vaccine programme and scientific approach on the virus itself wrt sequencing and non-vaccine pharmaceutical trials in the NHS which has yielded three potentially lifesaving treatments and quite a few more candidates in P3 trials.
Well I agree with all that, but the phrase rear view mirror, as if it is about winning a motor race sounds terrible to me. And apologies if I mistakenly associated you with posters seeing a conspiracy involving European governments and the EU to smear the AZ vaccine or try to disrupt the UK vaccination effort, which from my perspective is a bit QAnon.
A story some people might like because it kind of confirms cultural stereotypes about Germans: My wife told me she had an appointment for her first vaccination for 13.17 on a Friday. So asked her when she got the jab and she said 13.17. She got the appointment for the second jab - 13.21 exactly 21 days later. Which also happened bang on time. As a layman, I'm in favour of delaying the second jab to give more people first jabs - I asked if this might be a good idea here in December I think it might have been you or someone else who knows what they're talking about who said they can't do that because they don't have the trial data to support it. And that is also the German way, if the manufacturer says 3 weeks and that's what we have data for, then it's going to be hard work to persuade Germans to have the second dose a day later or sooner.
But this might also make a kind of sense. Vaccine hesitancy is very prevalent in Germany (and no, this is not all the fault of the EU commission or Macron, however unhelpful they have been, it predates any of that), so the possibility of something seeming to go a bit wrong with the vaccine (say if it unexpectedly turned out one dose didn't offer as much protection as hoped) would be perhaps disastrous for the willingness of people to take a vaccine at all. So there might be actual reasons for a more cautious approach,which apply less in the UK.
I see Twitter's having a normal one, accusing YouGov of being propogandists.
I'm not sure who for though.
They're basically conspiracy theorists. Because YouGov was set up by a couple of Tories, everything it says must be suspect, despite the fact that it follows all the impartial rules and regulations.
You'd think so, but no. The poll indicated that 82% of Britons support mask wearing in schools if social distancing impossible, not obviously a pro-Tory or pro-Labour conclusion. Read and be confused:
Whilst I don't doubt the YouGov figures, I do find them remarkable. I'm in the strongly opposed. If we're this worried about the virus spreading, the schools shouldn't be opening.
Well obviously opening schools will increase the transmission risk. Kids have not been vaccinated.
The question is whether this is on balance a sensible risk, and whether mitigation is possible. Masks are a reasonable mitigation, and required in other contexts, as well as being social normality now.
As suggested by Selebian, the question is a little vague.
On it being a social normality, it might be for going to the shops and getting your haircut (when allowed) - I wonder how long that will last - but I won't accept it as a new normal for anything else. Want me to go to the office? No masks. Want me to go to the pub? No masks.
I'm now intrigued at the thought of drinking a pint in a mask.
That's one big (albeit still pint-sized?) mask.
Simples. Design a mask with a built in straw with a one-way valve.
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
I think its a natural reaction - I have shed a few tears over some of the good news we have had regarding vaccines / lifting of restrictions myself.
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...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
Impossible to measure, but it's indisputable that the press is worth x seats to the Cons in most elections, where x is not a tiny number. Blair did a deal and so avoided being drenched in shit but this was the exception to the rule (of x).
How big is x? As I say, unmeasurable, but as a sub-rule of thumb to the main rule above, we can safely say that the size of x is positively correlated to how left wing the Labour leader is perceived to be.
Important technical nuance (since I know you are red hot on such) -
If a Labour loses by, say, 100 seats it doesn't mean x = 100. They didn't lose by 100 only or even mainly because of press smearing. They lost mainly because the public are sub-optimally positioned with their politics. But the smearing contributed.
Want numbers?
Ok, at GE19, Labour lost by 162 to the Cons and of that, x was ... hmm ... 75?
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
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.
Apologies for the tough words but this is the same as the UK being accused of starting a vaccine war by the commission who were at the time threatening export bans to override legally binding contracts from private companies.
The EU commission is making this a comparison or contest, I'm simply pointing out just how futile that comparison is. The effort by the commission should be spent on promoting the UK clinical data that shows the AZ vaccine has ~90% efficacy against hospitalisation three weeks after the first dose and debunking the bullshit fake news about side effects that seem to be being promoted by French and German media outlets based on selective reporting of UK yellow card data which showed 11k cases of adverse effects from 3.5m doses of AZ and 20k cases from 7m of Pfizer, the latter being completely ignored and the former being shown as some kind of disaster.
The whole acrimony between the EU commission and the UK/AZ has led to a worse vaccine programme in the EU and lower take up. The only losers from the commission's idiotic fight have been the European people, which is a huge shame. Now they're doing it again by trying to discredit the UK's single dose strategy but that has been used to great effect in getting the virus under control and reducing the threat of a third wave filling up hospitals to a much lower level. If anything the commission and EMA should be looking at our data and adjusting the rollout strategies across the whole EU to match the UK so 50% of doses don't need to be held back. Instead they're banging on about single doses somehow not counting towards the total.
Your ire would be better directed at the commission and your own government that has made huge missteps by trying to discredit the AZ vaccine and the UK rollout scheme.
As above, I agree mostly with that, and probably got you confused with another poster. Anyway gotta dash
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.
Paging Philip_Thompson. He can tell you how he didn't vote for a genocide abetter when he voted for a genocide abetter.
And now she's been raised to the Lords by the current prime minister, without a peep from him (or the other Johnson lovers on here).
I guess you're not that bothered about genocide.
*Bullshit*
I voted for there to be NO MEPs. I didn't vote for there to be any MEPs.
And when Claire Fox was elevated to the Lords I vehemently objected to it so you are lying or ignorant about "without a peep". This is what I had to say (amongst other posts attacking her and the appointment).
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2969807/#Comment_2969807 One thing that Corbyn and Fox have in common is they both very publicly supported the IRA not just in theory but even within days after atrocities, when even the IRAs erstwhile supporters were keeping quiet. Its one thing standing up for 'freedom fighters' in abstract - but to do so days after an atrocity while people are still mourning . . .
In the days after the Warrington bombings even IRA supporters were distancing themselves from such evil - but not Fox and her allies. Nor has she ever apologised for that.
She is every bit as contemptible as Corbyn. Utterly beyond the pale
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
Sadly, our Dart Music Festival - largest free festival in the south west - has come a little too early in the year so will have to be canned for the second year running. So frustrating - even more so if the number of cases has fallen off a cliff by early May.
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
Sadly, our Dart Music Festival - largest free festival in the south west - has come a little too early in the year so will have to be canned for the second year running. So frustrating - even more so if the number of cases has fallen off a cliff by early May.
I have no idea whether or not it was absolutely accurate or fair, but Ruth Davidson gave a very clear exposition on WATO of why the Salmond affair mattered. It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
She was excellent, as she so often is. I just wish she was our PM.
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
It tends to be the posts that follow Campbell's headers that reveal the true mood. My take on these is that the majority cannot wait to be rid of Sturgeon (and presumably replace her with Salmond).
The comments on Wings do, if the nats of my acquaintance are any indication, quite accurately reflect the feelings of a good chunk of the indy movement. I’ve had several tell me, in complete seriousness, that Sturgeon is an agent of the UK state and is deliberately blocking another indyref.
That’s cobblers. She’s just a standard-issue politician; her first and dominant priority is keeping Nicola Sturgeon in Bute house. Her actions make perfect sense if you assume she sees a referendum as a threat to her position, because there’s no certainty of winning and not doing so would end her career and very likely put her in the history books as the leader who threw away any chance of Scottish independence.
From her perspective it is better to firefight the rising anger of the true believers than stake everything on one big gamble.
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...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
And sorry, I meant to address your 1st point also.
It takes a certain skill to do what @BluestBlue does - which is to take a high quality, almost impeccable, post written from a left perspective and whip out of it the one and only very minor flaw, and make a meal of it.
I was simply paying homage to that.
It's why, when I converse with him on a serious matter, I make just the one rock solid point that he cannot argue against without looking ultra partisan and a bit silly.
Much more like it. Hopefully the start of the bumper days we have been promised for March.
My surgery has just announced that those who got their first Pfizer jab on 20th Dec will get their second one on 4th March.
My wife and I had our first Pfizer vaccinations on Saturday 23rd January and have received a text to attend the same venue on Sunday 7th March for our second, which is just a day over six weeks.
I am not an expert on vaccination distribution but if those having received their first doses now need their second, then surely the supply for first doses must be reduced
Or am I missing something
I reckon most of the Pfizer is now being stockpiled for second doses now.
The GP run clinic we attended yesterday, and a relative attended today, is doing 1000 jabs a day. We all anticipated Astra and got Pfizer.
GP who jabbed me said the practice get what they're given.
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...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
And sorry, I meant to address your 1st point also.
It takes a certain skill to do what @BluestBlue does - which is to take a high quality, almost impeccable, post written from a left perspective and whip out of it the one and only very minor flaw, and make a meal of it.
I was simply paying homage to that.
It's why, when I converse with him on a serious matter, I make just the one rock solid point that he cannot argue against without looking ultra partisan and a bit silly.
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
To be honest I do not think the public are listening anymore and of course 'covid' is playing a huge role in that
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
What about illegal restrictions?
Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that legal restrictions are to be replaced with either no restrictions at all or guidance only. The latter is more probable I suspect.
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...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
And sorry, I meant to address your 1st point also.
It takes a certain skill to do what @BluestBlue does - which is to take a high quality, almost impeccable, post written from a left perspective and whip out of it the one and only very minor flaw, and make a meal of it.
I was simply paying homage to that.
It's why, when I converse with him on a serious matter, I make just the one rock solid point that he cannot argue against without looking ultra partisan and a bit silly.
Your other great skill is constantly forcing me to wonder why there's no option to give half-likes to posts...
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
What about illegal restrictions?
Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that legal restrictions are to be replaced with either no restrictions at all or guidance only. The latter is more probable I suspect.
It was what we call round these parts 'a joke.'
You said legal restrictions would be ending, I asked if illegal restrictions would also be ending.
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...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
Impossible to measure, but it's indisputable that the press is worth x seats to the Cons in most elections, where x is not a tiny number. Blair did a deal and so avoided being drenched in shit but this was the exception to the rule (of x).
How big is x? As I say, unmeasurable, but as a sub-rule of thumb to the main rule above, we can safely say that the size of x is positively correlated to how left wing the Labour leader is perceived to be.
Important technical nuance (since I know you are red hot on such) -
If a Labour loses by, say, 100 seats it doesn't mean x = 100. They didn't lose by 100 only or even mainly because of press smearing. They lost mainly because the public are sub-optimally positioned with their politics. But the smearing contributed.
Want numbers?
Ok, at GE19, Labour lost by 162 to the Cons and of that, x was ... hmm ... 75?
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
Whether the press leads opinion, or follows it, is a complex debate. But, without wishing to be conspiratorial about it, most of the popular press is, and always has been, owned by rather wealthy proprietors who are usually right wing. Similarly, editors and senior journalists are rather well paid. So when most of the published press thinks that, for example, raising more taxes from the wealthy is a terrible idea, it's no great surprise is it?
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
What about illegal restrictions?
Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that legal restrictions are to be replaced with either no restrictions at all or guidance only. The latter is more probable I suspect.
It was what we call round these parts 'a joke.'
You said legal restrictions would be ending, I asked if illegal restrictions would also be ending.
Can I share an embarrasing secret? I am not going but when I saw that the Reading and Leeds Festivals are planning on going ahead I actually started crying a bit I was so happy. It's a shit lineup but I went the weekend I picked up my GCSE results and I am now starting to hope that teenagers may be able to have some sort of youth this summer.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
All legal restrictions to be lifted 21 June, so if the festivals are scheduled after that date I`d expect them to go ahead. Good for them.
What about illegal restrictions?
Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that legal restrictions are to be replaced with either no restrictions at all or guidance only. The latter is more probable I suspect.
It was what we call round these parts 'a joke.'
You said legal restrictions would be ending, I asked if illegal restrictions would also be ending.
Oh - sorry - sense of humour fail by me!
It's just the subtlety of my awesome wordplay that gets people.
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
To be honest I do not think the public are listening anymore and of course 'covid' is playing a huge role in that
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
What does the EU have to do with it? We left the EU over a year ago. Its our departure from the EEA and CU and the ludicrous terms we negotiated for our deal that are the issue.
I don't care whether the public are listening or not. Trade has to be able to flow, we negotiated a deal which significantly blocks it beyond the point where it flows sufficiently, changes are coming.
It tends to be the posts that follow Campbell's headers that reveal the true mood. My take on these is that the majority cannot wait to be rid of Sturgeon (and presumably replace her with Salmond).
The comments on Wings do, if the nats of my acquaintance are any indication, quite accurately reflect the feelings of a good chunk of the indy movement. I’ve had several tell me, in complete seriousness, that Sturgeon is an agent of the UK state and is deliberately blocking another indyref.
That’s cobblers. She’s just a standard-issue politician; her first and dominant priority is keeping Nicola Sturgeon in Bute house. Her actions make perfect sense if you assume she sees a referendum as a threat to her position, because there’s no certainty of winning and not doing so would end her career and very likely put her in the history books as the leader who threw away any chance of Scottish independence.
From her perspective it is better to firefight the rising anger of the true believers than stake everything on one big gamble.
Good analysis, albeit not one that many nats would agree with.
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”
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...
Congratulations on homing in like a whippet on the one arguably weak point in an otherwise excellent, strikingly astute post.
As one weak point doesnt eliminate any good points what harm in such honing? Indeed, such honing is counterproductive if, if, the main thrust is good.
Personally I think far too much is made of such things. Every election if a side looks to be doing badly they say the media has lost its influence, that the people will decide. If they do then lose suddenly the media are too powerful again.
Impossible to measure, but it's indisputable that the press is worth x seats to the Cons in most elections, where x is not a tiny number. Blair did a deal and so avoided being drenched in shit but this was the exception to the rule (of x).
How big is x? As I say, unmeasurable, but as a sub-rule of thumb to the main rule above, we can safely say that the size of x is positively correlated to how left wing the Labour leader is perceived to be.
Important technical nuance (since I know you are red hot on such) -
If a Labour loses by, say, 100 seats it doesn't mean x = 100. They didn't lose by 100 only or even mainly because of press smearing. They lost mainly because the public are sub-optimally positioned with their politics. But the smearing contributed.
Want numbers?
Ok, at GE19, Labour lost by 162 to the Cons and of that, x was ... hmm ... 75?
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
It's because the press are owned by cigar chomping types for whom money is a tool to buy the influence they feel is their entitlement as "hommes des affaires". Rothermere. Barclay. Beaverbrook. Maxwell. Murdoch. Lebedev. Wells. Kane. Etc. They are usually arch capitalists with a fear of having their wings clipped by any Labour government not led by Tony Blair.
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
To be honest I do not think the public are listening anymore and of course 'covid' is playing a huge role in that
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
What does the EU have to do with it? We left the EU over a year ago. Its our departure from the EEA and CU and the ludicrous terms we negotiated for our deal that are the issue.
I don't care whether the public are listening or not. Trade has to be able to flow, we negotiated a deal which significantly blocks it beyond the point where it flows sufficiently, changes are coming.
The EU does matter if you want to change the deal, but I do agree change is coming and of course those who lead change succeed while those who resist change fail
Any insight on how it is that the press is continuously biased in favour of the Conservatives? Is it bribery? Are journalists conditioned to like the colour blue? What?
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
If the press reflected the electorate then there would be probably 2 left-wing papers for every 3 right-wing papers? There isn't and there never will be.
It's a mix of factors - but I would suggest the crucial one is that people who own newspapers are very wealthy and they don't like the sound of the redistribution that the left is keen on.
Comments
I cannot believe the electorate was so gullible to believe a person who went to an elite school and Oxbridge was a man of the people.
*sighs*
https://twitter.com/MartinDaubney/status/1364567831216615426
Just imagine having voted for this party in 2019.
Very glad I voted to remove all our MEPs in 2019 to get rid of imbeciles like this.
When the tour is over they should be forced to walk home back to the UK.
EDIT: And lots of R4 obvs.
Just googled Novara Media using the search term, er, "Novara media".
Of the pinned tweets on the first search results page, two of the three are about Israel/Palestinians.
And people wonder why the "right wing" media dominates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ptWXw5SV88
The question is whether this is on balance a sensible risk, and whether mitigation is possible. Masks are a reasonable mitigation, and required in other contexts, as well as being social normality now.
Shame they messaged in the opposite direction.
"Unable to social distance" is also a little vague. I'm not even sure whether it means within classrooms necessarily - I doubt you'd get enough kids in most classrooms at an acceptable distance, so probably, but not explicit. You might get different numbers if you said, for example, all day, except for break time, which might perhaps be the case in many places?
And now she's been raised to the Lords by the current prime minister, without a peep from him (or the other Johnson lovers on here).
I guess you're not that bothered about genocide.
I am not an expert on vaccination distribution but if those having received their first doses now need their second, then surely the supply for first doses must be reduced
Or am I missing something
I'm no nationalist and have only been frequenting the blog of late to garner information about the third world political shenanigans that are otherwise going on.
The key is recognising it, working on it, and switching it on when you need to. You won't enjoy it, but you do it because you have to do it. And May could do it when pushed - she wasn't socially inept, could speak well, and could even pull off a little planned bit of fun such as her little conference dance thing. She's not the only one - I am pretty sure Obama is an introvert - a great communicator, but very measured.
Ditto, extroverts have to switch on their cooler, more measured side and switch off the spontaneity when required (something Johnson struggles with and Trump couldn't do at all).
I'm cautious about saying this as there may be genuine health reasons etc. But May needed someone nasty enough and respected enough in 2017 to take her into a room and yell, "FFS, Theresa - I know it's not fun, but think tits and teeth, play the game, stand on a soap box, face down a Corbynite or two, and in three weeks it'll all be a horrible memory and you'll have a sizeable majority to force your deal through". I don't know if it didn't happen or she didn't listen, but it did create a particularly horrible mismatch between the campaign theme and the lived reality of her campaign.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1364588538466082817?s=20
It's the first public commentary I've heard that rose above the incomprehensible or terminally dull.
On it being a social normality, it might be for going to the shops and getting your haircut (when allowed) - I wonder how long that will last - but I won't accept it as a new normal for anything else. Want me to go to the office? No masks. Want me to go to the pub? No masks.
It could, of course, all go pear shaped still but...yay!
I bought some Microwave popcorn and forgot about it.
Good low carb snack
Where's the Punch and Judy show with added Chimpanzees' Tea Party?
How big is x? As I say, unmeasurable, but as a sub-rule of thumb to the main rule above, we can safely say that the size of x is positively correlated to how left wing the Labour leader is perceived to be.
Important technical nuance (since I know you are red hot on such) -
If a Labour loses by, say, 100 seats it doesn't mean x = 100. They didn't lose by 100 only or even mainly because of press smearing. They lost mainly because the public are sub-optimally positioned with their politics. But the smearing contributed.
Want numbers?
Ok, at GE19, Labour lost by 162 to the Cons and of that, x was ... hmm ... 75?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzmLrrxk_Mk
Others will have no idea what I am talking about.
I really hope he returns, as while we are on the opposite sides of the independence debate, we both love Scotland and the Scots with a passion
The key takeaway is that delays are getting worse, with 2/3rds now seeing 2-3 day delays to cross. And this is before we start obeying WTO rules and fully applying the 3rd country checks we demanded be imposed.
A story some people might like because it kind of confirms cultural stereotypes about Germans:
My wife told me she had an appointment for her first vaccination for 13.17 on a Friday. So asked her when she got the jab and she said 13.17. She got the appointment for the second jab - 13.21 exactly 21 days later. Which also happened bang on time.
As a layman, I'm in favour of delaying the second jab to give more people first jabs - I asked if this might be a good idea here in December I think it might have been you or someone else who knows what they're talking about who said they can't do that because they don't have the trial data to support it.
And that is also the German way, if the manufacturer says 3 weeks and that's what we have data for, then it's going to be hard work to persuade Germans to have the second dose a day later or sooner.
But this might also make a kind of sense. Vaccine hesitancy is very prevalent in Germany (and no, this is not all the fault of the EU commission or Macron, however unhelpful they have been, it predates any of that), so the possibility of something seeming to go a bit wrong with the vaccine (say if it unexpectedly turned out one dose didn't offer as much protection as hoped) would be perhaps disastrous for the willingness of people to take a vaccine at all. So there might be actual reasons for a more cautious approach,which apply less in the UK.
Or is it just that they make a call on which way a majority of their readers would like them to lean, and it just happens that there's more right-leaning people than left-leaning people reading a majority of our major papers?
I voted for there to be NO MEPs. I didn't vote for there to be any MEPs.
And when Claire Fox was elevated to the Lords I vehemently objected to it so you are lying or ignorant about "without a peep". This is what I had to say (amongst other posts attacking her and the appointment).
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2969807/#Comment_2969807
One thing that Corbyn and Fox have in common is they both very publicly supported the IRA not just in theory but even within days after atrocities, when even the IRAs erstwhile supporters were keeping quiet. Its one thing standing up for 'freedom fighters' in abstract - but to do so days after an atrocity while people are still mourning . . .
In the days after the Warrington bombings even IRA supporters were distancing themselves from such evil - but not Fox and her allies. Nor has she ever apologised for that.
She is every bit as contemptible as Corbyn. Utterly beyond the pale
That’s cobblers. She’s just a standard-issue politician; her first and dominant priority is keeping Nicola Sturgeon in Bute house. Her actions make perfect sense if you assume she sees a referendum as a threat to her position, because there’s no certainty of winning and not doing so would end her career and very likely put her in the history books as the leader who threw away any chance of Scottish independence.
From her perspective it is better to firefight the rising anger of the true believers than stake everything on one big gamble.
It takes a certain skill to do what @BluestBlue does - which is to take a high quality, almost impeccable, post written from a left perspective and whip out of it the one and only very minor flaw, and make a meal of it.
I was simply paying homage to that.
It's why, when I converse with him on a serious matter, I make just the one rock solid point that he cannot argue against without looking ultra partisan and a bit silly.
GP who jabbed me said the practice get what they're given.
In addition UVDL, Macron and Merkel's behaviour over AZN has been reprehensible and has damaged the perceptions of the EU more than anything recently, a self inflicted wound
Indeed I read a report that Merkel has all but given up
You said legal restrictions would be ending, I asked if illegal restrictions would also be ending.
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1364554919123054596
I don't care whether the public are listening or not. Trade has to be able to flow, we negotiated a deal which significantly blocks it beyond the point where it flows sufficiently, changes are coming.
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”
Otto von Bismarck
60% protection of 10 million people is better than 90% protection for 5 million people.
And you scale from there as 1 dose seems to offer 95%+ protection from serious illness.
https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/1364561482185199625?s=19
There isn't and there never will be.
It's a mix of factors - but I would suggest the crucial one is that people who own newspapers are very wealthy and they don't like the sound of the redistribution that the left is keen on.