On another anecdotal account from my relative, Boris's heroic crusade against the French doesn't seem to be doing much for turnout in the Southwest either.
Boris is a damn fool if he's got everyone digging Anderson shelters in their back gardens when they should be out voting.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Boris is a rock star.
Starmer is the rock stars accountant.
We kind of expect our rock stars to be badly behaved.
Not saying it's right, but it's how it is.
True, and that's what make Johnson a formidable opponent. On the other hand, who would you rather have running your affairs? A rock star or their accountant?
It's the Telegraph of course, but he does make some telling points. Johnson has grabbed the centre ground and Starmer is not being allowed near it.
I agree the foodbank photoshoot was a mistake. Who thinks of this stuff? It is a total cliche and unlike Johnson's cliche of a bike ride dangerously close to the canal there are no laughs lurking.
But also the foodbank film just reinforces the GOTV operation I suppose of people who already fret about the massive increase in foodbank use.
I rate Nandy fairly highly but she's pretty "woke" if you look at many of the policies she's supported and advocated during the leadership contest. I think given a few weeks she would be despised by the "anti-woke" brigade here.
Jess Phillips is the best "Labour Johnson" but she has a habit of saying some quite stupid things and I don't feel has quite enough leadership experience, yet. Given a few years though, she would be high on my list. Maybe one for 2029 or later.
Personally I really rate Dan Jarvis but he seems to never be bothered to stand.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
The funny thing is that in many nations around the world food banks are seen as an unmistakably good thing. It means people are secure enough and generous enough to be donating to those that need it, for whatever reason. There's no negative there.
I recall years ago saying when Labour were trying to weaponise this that I thought it a good thing. That I donate myself and that charities are limited by donations not demand. So more parcels being given out means more donations. I was called a heartless Tory for this.
The irony is that food banks are possibly a prime example of Cameron's Big Society idea.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Boris is a rock star.
Starmer is the rock stars accountant.
We kind of expect our rock stars to be badly behaved.
Not saying it's right, but it's how it is.
True, and that's what make Johnson a formidable opponent. On the other hand, who would you rather have running your affairs? A rock star or their accountant?
It's the Telegraph of course, but he does make some telling points. Johnson has grabbed the centre ground and Starmer is not being allowed near it.
I agree the foodbank photoshoot was a mistake. Who thinks of this stuff? It is a total cliche and unlike Johnson's cliche of a bike ride dangerously close to the canal there are no laughs lurking.
But also the foodbank film just reinforces the GOTV operation I suppose of people who already fret about the massive increase in foodbank use.
That's Boris's greatest skill - what ground exists for Labour to build upon in a way that might attract a wider group of voters.
What is currently left are a few islands completely separated from each other.
I rate Nandy fairly highly but she's pretty "woke" if you look at many of the policies she's supported and advocated during the leadership contest. I think given a few weeks she would be despised by the "anti-woke" brigade here.
Jess Phillips is the best "Labour Johnson" but she has a habit of saying some quite stupid things and I don't feel has quite enough leadership experience, yet. Given a few years though, she would be high on my list. Maybe one for 2029 or later.
Personally I really rate Dan Jarvis but he seems to never be bothered to stand.
Having met Nandy in person, she came across as woke but in a "these are my views, deal with it" kind of way rather than a "I'm better than you because you don't believe X" kind of way.
Although election days aren’t the same without an early morning delivery finishing about now.
Good morning everyone.
Agree, Mr B2; no organising the first tellers nowadays, either. It is bight and sunny here though; reminds me of two beautiful mornings in early May 1997; May 1st and 2nd! Ah, memories!
I have tellers out at my three polling stations and deliverers out delivering. Knocking up from midday.
EDIT: Us cockroaches don't give up easily!
You should be out there leading from the front! Not sitting indoors with a cup of tea browsing PB
I'm running the Committee room and directing the troops (while browsing PB now and then). Waiting for the first telling returns
I've just back from nearest polling station. Returning Officer says turnout is much greater than he expected. 20 people queuing to vote at 7am.
I don't know if that is good news for us or not. Depends whether they are voting for us I suppose. I'll soon have an indication as I enter the data. I won't be telling!
As I've said a few times, I'm puzzled by the active interest that most voters who I talk to are showing. Maybe it's because they've not been able to vote for two years!
Any legitimate excuse to get out of the house at the moment.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
The school dinner ladies I know tell a very different story about foodbanks to that of middle class leftists.
For me personally, the time for Starmer to resign will be if this time next year Labour is still behind in the polls.
He'll have had two years to "bed in" and should have announced some policies, seen the public reaction, had a better SC in place and Labour should then have a pretty good handle on whether Starmer has a chance.
Before then is entirely premature and pointless, who would replace him and how/why would they do a better job? Until somebody can answer that question, he is the best Labour has right now.
I was thinking Nandy partly because she’s northern, partly because she’s a woman and partly because she’s an effective communicator,. Usually.
Your caveat has set the PB Boris fanbois tone for her time in office. "She's useless, she's a poor communicator, ******* ****** would have been a better choice, and by the way did you see Boris cycling on the towpaths of Stourbridge last night. Wow, he can ride a bike, now that is impressive, and besides which, his hair was perfect".
Well I voted on my way into the office. I ended up making an at the polling station decision to give my first preference to Sian Berry for the London mayoral election instead of Luisa Porritt (the Lib Dem). I may have to hand in my membership card at this rate... Basically my main concern for areas the London mayor has control over is transport and making it a nicer place to get around without a car. Still voted party line for the assembly seats though.
I saw HMS Severn go past my window yesterday morning. How is it going to switch the lights back on?
Jersey's backup power supply will switch the lights back on...
I really don't understand French Govt Ministers' utter dedication to being posturing twats.
Anyhoo the Minister for Silly Talks seems to have backed down from making like Vladimir Putin wrt Georgia.
Plays well in “Le Daily Mail?”
Nah this is win win territory
Struggling french president turns Monsieur macho and stuffs it to les rosbifs in run up to election Tub thumping PM socks it to the frogs on election day
Both sides want to play
How exactly did Macron "stuff" us? A threat to cut off the power not acted upon, a flotilla of trawlers that turns tail after making some sort of a gesture. A really crap EU deal that doesn't seem to suit us or the French. Surely he has just demonstrated his own ineffectiveness.
A successful military victory against mainland Europe, would of course confirm Johnson as Churchillian. Indeed he would surpass Churchill, we could from hereon refer to Churchill as Johnsonian.
Scramble the Navy!
Both ships?
Everything that floats (ie Diamond, Defender, Richmond, Kent, Tidespring, Fort Victoria, an unamed Astute and QE) are currently off Cape Wrath for the Strike Warrior 21 exercise.
That's why the running the blockade of Jersey has been left to the "M*ng Fleet" (as they are rather uncharitably known in the RN) of the River Class.
I rate Nandy fairly highly but she's pretty "woke" if you look at many of the policies she's supported and advocated during the leadership contest. I think given a few weeks she would be despised by the "anti-woke" brigade here.
Jess Phillips is the best "Labour Johnson" but she has a habit of saying some quite stupid things and I don't feel has quite enough leadership experience, yet. Given a few years though, she would be high on my list. Maybe one for 2029 or later.
Personally I really rate Dan Jarvis but he seems to never be bothered to stand.
I agree with almost all of this, although I think Nandy might ultimately be pragmatic enough to quietly drop her support for things like the GRA, in the face of the furious opposition it would, um, engender.
How is Jess Phillips going to acquire leadership experience between now and 2029? This is why I think you're going to end up with Sadiq Khan. Like Johnson, he can point to high-profile experience of actually doing stuff and winning elections.
I'm always boring and cast my vote with an X. Just curious if anyone ever tries to be funny or similar with their vote, in a way that doesn't spoil it?
I was wondering for instance if you were to eg draw a smiley face in one candidates box, and a sad face in all other candidates, then would that be a spoilt ballot or a 'clear preference'?
Spoilt, although I have seen a bizarre decision by a returning officer - Election for two places, 2 LDs, 2 Con and 1 Lab on ballot paper. Someone had voted for one of the Cons and then scrubbed it out (obliterated the whole area) and put a cross against Lab.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
The school dinner ladies I know tell a very different story about foodbanks to that of middle class leftists.
Foodbank use rose dramatically between February and April last year, just as it grew dramatically in line with welfare cuts in 2014. These are facts, and nothing to do with tabloid mythology.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
This is possibly your most ignorant post, from a range at other times better.
You may disagree about how i reached the conclusion, but do you agree that labour weaponizing poverty p@rn is a drag on their support?
Just been to vote. First time I've seen a queue to do so since we moved here 20 years ago. And judging by the comments, that applied to several others in the queue. Not all wearing masks, although those that weren't put one on before being allowed in. Only two people allowed in together if they were obviously a couple.... elderly lady fussing over husband and his glasses. My mask makes them steam up! Took longer than usual as we had three different ballot papers. No tellers, but then we rarely do have here, even in a General.
Going to take a while to count, I suspect; all ballot papers in same box. One was a significantly different colour, two were quite similar.
I saw HMS Severn go past my window yesterday morning. How is it going to switch the lights back on?
Jersey's backup power supply will switch the lights back on...
I really don't understand French Govt Ministers' utter dedication to being posturing twats.
Anyhoo the Minister for Silly Talks seems to have backed down from making like Vladimir Putin wrt Georgia.
Plays well in “Le Daily Mail?”
Nah this is win win territory
Struggling french president turns Monsieur macho and stuffs it to les rosbifs in run up to election Tub thumping PM socks it to the frogs on election day
Both sides want to play
How exactly did Macron "stuff" us? A threat to cut off the power not acted upon, a flotilla of trawlers that turns tail after making some sort of a gesture. A really crap EU deal that doesn't seem to suit us or the French. Surely he has just demonstrated his own ineffectiveness.
A successful military victory against mainland Europe, would of course confirm Johnson as Churchillian. Indeed he would surpass Churchill, we could from hereon refer to Churchill as Johnsonian.
Scramble the Navy!
Both ships?
Everything that floats (ie Diamond, Defender, Richmond, Kent, Tidespring, Fort Victoria, an unamed Astute and QE) are currently off Cape Wrath for the Strike Warrior 21 exercise.
That's why the running the blockade of Jersey has been left to the "M*ng Fleet" (as they are rather uncharitably known in the RN) of the River Class.
Not quite true. At least 1 ship is currently in the Caribbean — I know because my best mate is on it.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
The school dinner ladies I know tell a very different story about foodbanks to that of middle class leftists.
Foodbank use rose dramatically between February and April last year, just as it grew dramatically in line with welfare cuts from 2014. These are facts, and nothing to do with tabloid mythology.
Increased demand of a free product does not equate to increased need. But that is a side issue, the question is, is the obsession with poverty p@rn a drag on their support?
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
The school dinner ladies I know tell a very different story about foodbanks to that of middle class leftists.
Foodbank use rose dramatically between February and April last year, just as it grew dramatically in line with welfare cuts from 2014 onwards. These are facts, and nothing to do with tabloid mytology.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
The school dinner ladies I know tell a very different story about foodbanks to that of middle class leftists.
Foodbank use rose dramatically between February and April last year, just as it grew dramatically in line with welfare cuts in 2014. These are facts, and nothing to do with tabloid mythology.
Food bank demand can spike when it comes to people hitting difficulties for a short term like Feb to Apr 2020.
Foodbank use long term is capped by foodbank donations. If it grew, it means that people were more generous in 2014. The big society was working.
On the phone with EDF Energy again who have generated 5 conflicting invoices since 22nd April for my office. All incorrect. Annoyingly they correct one part and then uncorrect a second part. So I ring up. Give all the same info again. They generate another invoice that fixes the second part and reverts the first part back to being wrong. Rinse and repeat. This is why I am not using EDF going forward....
I rate Nandy fairly highly but she's pretty "woke" if you look at many of the policies she's supported and advocated during the leadership contest. I think given a few weeks she would be despised by the "anti-woke" brigade here.
Jess Phillips is the best "Labour Johnson" but she has a habit of saying some quite stupid things and I don't feel has quite enough leadership experience, yet. Given a few years though, she would be high on my list. Maybe one for 2029 or later.
Personally I really rate Dan Jarvis but he seems to never be bothered to stand.
I agree with almost all of this, although I think Nandy might ultimately be pragmatic enough to quietly drop her support for things like the GRA, in the face of the furious opposition it would, um, engender.
How is Jess Phillips going to acquire leadership experience between now and 2029? This is why I think you're going to end up with Sadiq Khan. Like Johnson, he can point to high-profile experience of actually doing stuff and winning elections.
Starmer is just as pragmatic as Nandy though, you see that with Brexit etc.
I don't advocate Nandy because she is basically "not Starmer". There is nothing about her for me that makes her any better than him. As good as, probably. Better than, no not convinced. She needs more experience.
Khan is an interesting bet but he's very, very woke and I don't see how he's really much different to Starmer. They have pretty similar backgrounds all told.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
This is possibly your most ignorant post, from a range at other times better.
You may disagree about how i reached the conclusion, but do you agree that labour weaponizing poverty p@rn is a drag on their support?
Only if Labour fails to change the wider narrative ; this is partly why Starmer has such a huge challenge. A concept of the dignity of work was strong in Wilson's administrations, but before Thatcher there was much less of the active antipathy for others. He has to change the entire political weather in order to be able focus on wider important issues like foodbanks ; this was partly achieved by the pandemic, but it's still not an easy ask.
Not quite true. At least 1 ship is currently in the Caribbean — I know because my best mate is on it.
Nice draft for him! The weather off Cape Wrath looks absolutely fucked. I never had the pleasure of a a Caribbean cruise on the Grey Funnel Lines. I did 1 x Med, 1 x Adriatic with incidental bombing of Kosovo, 2 x Far East.
What Labour basically need as a leader is a soft-left, reasonably charismatic, pro-ish Brexit, pro-Britain leader.
Dan Jarvis hits all of those boxes and has decent experience. The fact he is Northern is a bonus although than in itself I feel is a bit patronising. The North voted for posh Blair for goodness sake.
I'm always boring and cast my vote with an X. Just curious if anyone ever tries to be funny or similar with their vote, in a way that doesn't spoil it?
I was wondering for instance if you were to eg draw a smiley face in one candidates box, and a sad face in all other candidates, then would that be a spoilt ballot or a 'clear preference'?
Spoilt, although I have seen a bizarre decision by a returning officer - Election for two places, 2 LDs, 2 Con and 1 Lab on ballot paper. Someone had voted for one of the Cons and then scrubbed it out (obliterated the whole area) and put a cross against Lab.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Why would that be spoilt instead of a clear preference? What's the rule that applies?
I heard a story once, possibly apocryphal, that someone wrote "Dick" in all boxes but one and "Not a dick" in one. That was deemed a valid vote as there was a clear preference.
Before I must get back to work, I think Starmer is capable of repeating Corbyn's 2017 performance. That however won't be enough at this stage, unless as I keep saying, the Lib Dems are prepared to do some damage.
Starmer needs to be pragmatic on some kind of unofficial pact with them
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
This is possibly your most ignorant post, from a range at other times better.
You may disagree about how i reached the conclusion, but do you agree that labour weaponizing poverty p@rn is a drag on their support?
Only if Labour fails to change the wider narrative ; this is partly why Starmer has such a huge challenge. A concept of the dignity of work was strong in Wilson's administrations, but before Thatcher there was much less of the active antipathy for others. He has to change the entire political weather in order to be able focus on wider important issues like foodbanks ; this was partly achieved by the pandemic, but it's still not an easy ask.
You're right. Redouble your efforts on trying to convince people that it is evil that charities exist. That normal people donating to charities is a sign something has gone wrong.
I usually vote early before work and then go get breakfast to reward myself for performing my civic duty. I've never voted in this polling station before, and this is probably the most 'middle class' area I've ever lived in, but turn out before 8 was the busiest I've ever seen, even in a general. Admittedly, it's difficult to compare to previous years, with COVID slowing the process down, but I'm used to voting with only a few others in the hall with me and this time we're probably into double digits. Not sure what this anecdote has to contribute, or what it means for the future of the Union, but thought I would share my impression.
Well I voted on my way into the office. I ended up making an at the polling station decision to give my first preference to Sian Berry for the London mayoral election instead of Luisa Porritt (the Lib Dem). I may have to hand in my membership card at this rate... Basically my main concern for areas the London mayor has control over is transport and making it a nicer place to get around without a car. Still voted party line for the assembly seats though.
Hang on to your card. Sooner or later the party will realise the need to put up good candidates. Porritt was another feminist obsessive. When the Lib Dems realise that competence is more important than posturing they might do better.
I usually vote early before work and then go get breakfast to reward myself for performing my civic duty. I've never voted in this polling station before, and this is probably the most 'middle class' area I've ever lived in, but turn out before 8 was the busiest I've ever seen, even in a general. Admittedly, it's difficult to compare to previous years, with COVID slowing the process down, but I'm used to voting with only a few others in the hall with me and this time we're probably into double digits. Not sure what this anecdote has to contribute, or what it means for the future of the Union, but thought I would share my impression.
What Labour basically need as a leader is a soft-left, reasonably charismatic, pro-ish Brexit, pro-Britain leader.
What does "pro ish Brexit" even mean? It's over. Or is the UK going to leave AGAIN to teach the EU a lesson?
Somebody that was pro-Brexit prior to the 2019 GE, Jarvis advocated leaving on a deal. To be fair so did Nandy. That's what I mean, I don't happen to think this is a huge issue for Starmer but every little helps.
Although election days aren’t the same without an early morning delivery finishing about now.
Good morning everyone.
Agree, Mr B2; no organising the first tellers nowadays, either. It is bight and sunny here though; reminds me of two beautiful mornings in early May 1997; May 1st and 2nd! Ah, memories!
I have tellers out at my three polling stations and deliverers out delivering. Knocking up from midday.
EDIT: Us cockroaches don't give up easily!
Anno Domini has caught up with me!
Just voted.
It seems at 9:30am I was number 32 vote in my ward.
I had forgotten I have the opportunity to help remove our rather obssessive Police and Crime Commissioner.
Good election morning all. I'm crowdsourcing my method for ballot-spoiling in the London Mayoralty election - any contributions?
Alternatively, there is an outside (but non-zero) chance I can be persuaded to voted Lib Dem, if anyone cares enough to take a whack at that...
Vote Binface, let’s see if Londoners can get him his £10k deposit returned.
That is a lot for a joke candidate. A worthy cause.
Exactly! They presumably set it that high for the executive mayor elections to weed out candidates who aren’t serious, but there’s still 20 names on the ballot paper in London today.
Yes, I’d love to know who put up the £10k for Binface too.
Although election days aren’t the same without an early morning delivery finishing about now.
Good morning everyone.
Agree, Mr B2; no organising the first tellers nowadays, either. It is bight and sunny here though; reminds me of two beautiful mornings in early May 1997; May 1st and 2nd! Ah, memories!
I have tellers out at my three polling stations and deliverers out delivering. Knocking up from midday.
EDIT: Us cockroaches don't give up easily!
Anno Domini has caught up with me!
Just voted.
It seems at 9:30am I was number 32 vote in my ward.
I had forgotten I have the opportunity to help remove our rather obssessive Police and Crime Commissioner.
Which way round did you arrange your Lib Dem & Tory votes for that ?
I'm always boring and cast my vote with an X. Just curious if anyone ever tries to be funny or similar with their vote, in a way that doesn't spoil it?
I was wondering for instance if you were to eg draw a smiley face in one candidates box, and a sad face in all other candidates, then would that be a spoilt ballot or a 'clear preference'?
Spoilt, although I have seen a bizarre decision by a returning officer - Election for two places, 2 LDs, 2 Con and 1 Lab on ballot paper. Someone had voted for one of the Cons and then scrubbed it out (obliterated the whole area) and put a cross against Lab.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Why would that be spoilt instead of a clear preference? What's the rule that applies?
I heard a story once, possibly apocryphal, that someone wrote "Dick" in all boxes but one and "Not a dick" in one. That was deemed a valid vote as there was a clear preference.
Does it not work that way?
It is years since I have been trained on this so don't take this as official but any mark in the appropriate box (with the exception of anything that could be construed as identification, which will automatically be deemed as spoilt) seems to be taken as a vote, therefore it will count as 2 votes and therefore spoilt (if only one vote is permitted). Hence the example I gave, which was clearly nonsense. If there is any doubt it will be counted as spoilt.
A drawing of a penis clearly in one box is an interesting one.
Also writing Dick on the ballot paper might fall foul of the identification rule by an over zealous returning officer even though it is clear that it is no such thing.
So I am pretty sure a sad face against the one you don't want and a smiley face against the one you do want will get rejected and put to the agents to discuss, but rejected.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
This why the Labour Party are going to be far less patient with Starmer's failings than they were with Corbo. Lack of meme appeal.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
This is possibly your most ignorant post, from a range at other times better.
You may disagree about how i reached the conclusion, but do you agree that labour weaponizing poverty p@rn is a drag on their support?
Only if Labour fails to change the wider narrative ; this is partly why Starmer has such a huge challenge. A concept of the dignity of work was strong in Wilson's administrations, but before Thatcher there was much less of the active antipathy for others. He has to change the entire political weather in order to be able focus on wider important issues like foodbanks ; this was partly achieved by the pandemic, but it's still not an easy ask.
You're right. Redouble your efforts on trying to convince people that it is evil that charities exist. That normal people donating to charities is a sign something has gone wrong.
I'm sure that will work. 79th time is the charm.
Charities are a great thing, but in terms of subsistence they should supplement the essentials, not provide them. I know three people who work for the Trussell Trust, probably the largest provider of foodbanks in the UK, and I've heard many, plentiful and entirely convincing accounts of the state failing to provide basic subsistence throughout the last seven years. This has been partially improved, but very definitely not fully ameliorated, by the rise in UC since last year, but if that were to be cut back again, or frozen over the long term, foodbank use will rocket yet once again, just as it did in 2014-2015.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
I still dont know how he did it. Nothing he said was particularly unique and although he had a gentle, sincere manner (most of the time) he wasnt the strongest performer among the Left. It wasn't merely that people turned on May, he really did fire people up. It didn't work out or sustain itself, but it was a little impressive how much those who liked him did so.
I saw HMS Severn go past my window yesterday morning. How is it going to switch the lights back on?
Jersey's backup power supply will switch the lights back on...
I really don't understand French Govt Ministers' utter dedication to being posturing twats.
Anyhoo the Minister for Silly Talks seems to have backed down from making like Vladimir Putin wrt Georgia.
Plays well in “Le Daily Mail?”
Nah this is win win territory
Struggling french president turns Monsieur macho and stuffs it to les rosbifs in run up to election Tub thumping PM socks it to the frogs on election day
Both sides want to play
How exactly did Macron "stuff" us? A threat to cut off the power not acted upon, a flotilla of trawlers that turns tail after making some sort of a gesture. A really crap EU deal that doesn't seem to suit us or the French. Surely he has just demonstrated his own ineffectiveness.
A successful military victory against mainland Europe, would of course confirm Johnson as Churchillian. Indeed he would surpass Churchill, we could from hereon refer to Churchill as Johnsonian.
Scramble the Navy!
Nelson, Churchill, Steve Baker, Johnson. These names will be remembered for a thousand years.
It seems like an excellent opportunity to introduce the concept of the rule of law to some French fishermen, and begin better marine conservation at the same time.
Despite the levity, when Government Ministers start making threats to deny basics of life to 170k people, this is a serious situation.
Given the previous mix of hundreds of French vessels on the grounds compared to under 100 from Jersey, incidental reduction of the French vessels by say 80% is an excellent idea.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
I think that is simple. In 2017 Labour became the anti-Brexit vote. The young are generally anti-Brexit so we saw a dip in voting for other parties in favour of the big two. By 2019 Labour had switched to being the pro-Brexit party hence the corresponding shift back to LibDem/Green etc.
I'm always boring and cast my vote with an X. Just curious if anyone ever tries to be funny or similar with their vote, in a way that doesn't spoil it?
I was wondering for instance if you were to eg draw a smiley face in one candidates box, and a sad face in all other candidates, then would that be a spoilt ballot or a 'clear preference'?
Spoilt, although I have seen a bizarre decision by a returning officer - Election for two places, 2 LDs, 2 Con and 1 Lab on ballot paper. Someone had voted for one of the Cons and then scrubbed it out (obliterated the whole area) and put a cross against Lab.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Why would that be spoilt instead of a clear preference? What's the rule that applies?
I heard a story once, possibly apocryphal, that someone wrote "Dick" in all boxes but one and "Not a dick" in one. That was deemed a valid vote as there was a clear preference.
Does it not work that way?
It is years since I have been trained on this so don't take this as official but any mark in the appropriate box (with the exception of anything that could be construed as identification, which will automatically be deemed as spoilt) seems to be taken as a vote, therefore it will count as 2 votes and therefore spoilt (if only one vote is permitted). Hence the example I gave, which was clearly nonsense. If there is any doubt it will be counted as spoilt.
A drawing of a penis clearly in one box is an interesting one.
Also writing Dick on the ballot paper might fall foul of the identification rule by an over zealous returning officer even though it is clear that it is no such thing.
So I am pretty sure a sad face against the one you don't want and a smiley face against the one you do want will get rejected and put to the agents to discuss, but rejected.
A mark doesnt even need to be in a box. Circle one name, or cross through everyone but one candidate and these are advised to be counted. Penises, which were up in 2019, are almost always counted.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Foodbankism is a problem for Labour, and they dont realise it. It's become a middle class obsession for wealthy retired people who dye their hair purple. While i'm sure they do good and its a numbers game for every five dozen chancers they'll be someone has got themselves into a pickle and has ended up with not enough food to get to the end of the week, but those who live around people who regularly use them will tell you about them getting taxis to the foodbanks, about them spending their benefits on gadgets etc.
Labour had successfully (by their reckoning) weaponised food banks, just like they did with universal credit and bedroom tax. But theres a lot of lower paid people who dont use them and never would who are alienated by it.
I sense that while food bank worship and poverty p@rn plays well to Labour's membership base (the working assumption has to be that a Tory Government is evil and starving poor people), it puts off wider support.
This is possibly your most ignorant post, from a range at other times better.
You may disagree about how i reached the conclusion, but do you agree that labour weaponizing poverty p@rn is a drag on their support?
Only if Labour fails to change the wider narrative ; this is partly why Starmer has such a huge challenge. A concept of the dignity of work was strong in Wilson's administrations, but before Thatcher there was much less of the active antipathy for others. He has to change the entire political weather in order to be able focus on wider important issues like foodbanks ; this was partly achieved by the pandemic, but it's still not an easy ask.
You're right. Redouble your efforts on trying to convince people that it is evil that charities exist. That normal people donating to charities is a sign something has gone wrong.
I'm sure that will work. 79th time is the charm.
It's the "24 hours to save the NHS". A failed strategy repeatedly deployed. It only works when accompanied by a lot the proper stuff that gets the middle engaged. But why interrupt the enemy as they continue to make the same error over and over.
Household poverty today is the same percentage of the population it was 2003 and has barely changed a couple of percent up, a couple of percent down.
The elections in England are entirely underwhelming. If I wasn't such a political nerd I wouldn't have bothered myself.
Ours was PCC only. I'd not have bothered if we didn't have a postal vote (and I've voted in every election going, I think). As it was, I simply voted for the independent as making PCC party-political seems to be to be a nonsense. I'd vote for the abolish-PCC party though (the independent promised to donate 20% salary to charity - I'd have happily voted for someone promising to donate 100% to charity and do absolutely nothing).
I'm always boring and cast my vote with an X. Just curious if anyone ever tries to be funny or similar with their vote, in a way that doesn't spoil it?
I was wondering for instance if you were to eg draw a smiley face in one candidates box, and a sad face in all other candidates, then would that be a spoilt ballot or a 'clear preference'?
Spoilt, although I have seen a bizarre decision by a returning officer - Election for two places, 2 LDs, 2 Con and 1 Lab on ballot paper. Someone had voted for one of the Cons and then scrubbed it out (obliterated the whole area) and put a cross against Lab.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Why would that be spoilt instead of a clear preference? What's the rule that applies?
I heard a story once, possibly apocryphal, that someone wrote "Dick" in all boxes but one and "Not a dick" in one. That was deemed a valid vote as there was a clear preference.
Does it not work that way?
It is years since I have been trained on this so don't take this as official but any mark in the appropriate box (with the exception of anything that could be construed as identification, which will automatically be deemed as spoilt) seems to be taken as a vote, therefore it will count as 2 votes and therefore spoilt (if only one vote is permitted). Hence the example I gave, which was clearly nonsense. If there is any doubt it will be counted as spoilt.
A drawing of a penis clearly in one box is an interesting one.
Also writing Dick on the ballot paper might fall foul of the identification rule by an over zealous returning officer even though it is clear that it is no such thing.
So I am pretty sure a sad face against the one you don't want and a smiley face against the one you do want will get rejected and put to the agents to discuss, but rejected.
The lack of common sense I have seen in the past (admittedly only on a few ballot papers) is annoying. I have even seen ballots that were clearly intended to be spoilt that got counted! And of course visa versa where the intention is clear, but rejected. Fortunately it rarely matters.
I'm always boring and cast my vote with an X. Just curious if anyone ever tries to be funny or similar with their vote, in a way that doesn't spoil it?
I was wondering for instance if you were to eg draw a smiley face in one candidates box, and a sad face in all other candidates, then would that be a spoilt ballot or a 'clear preference'?
Spoilt, although I have seen a bizarre decision by a returning officer - Election for two places, 2 LDs, 2 Con and 1 Lab on ballot paper. Someone had voted for one of the Cons and then scrubbed it out (obliterated the whole area) and put a cross against Lab.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Why would that be spoilt instead of a clear preference? What's the rule that applies?
I heard a story once, possibly apocryphal, that someone wrote "Dick" in all boxes but one and "Not a dick" in one. That was deemed a valid vote as there was a clear preference.
Does it not work that way?
It is years since I have been trained on this so don't take this as official but any mark in the appropriate box (with the exception of anything that could be construed as identification, which will automatically be deemed as spoilt) seems to be taken as a vote, therefore it will count as 2 votes and therefore spoilt (if only one vote is permitted). Hence the example I gave, which was clearly nonsense. If there is any doubt it will be counted as spoilt.
A drawing of a penis clearly in one box is an interesting one.
Also writing Dick on the ballot paper might fall foul of the identification rule by an over zealous returning officer even though it is clear that it is no such thing.
So I am pretty sure a sad face against the one you don't want and a smiley face against the one you do want will get rejected and put to the agents to discuss, but rejected.
A mark doesnt even need to be in a box. Circle one name, or cross through everyone but one candidate and these are advised to be counted. Penises, which were up in 2019, are almost always counted.
I saw HMS Severn go past my window yesterday morning. How is it going to switch the lights back on?
Jersey's backup power supply will switch the lights back on...
I really don't understand French Govt Ministers' utter dedication to being posturing twats.
Anyhoo the Minister for Silly Talks seems to have backed down from making like Vladimir Putin wrt Georgia.
Plays well in “Le Daily Mail?”
Nah this is win win territory
Struggling french president turns Monsieur macho and stuffs it to les rosbifs in run up to election Tub thumping PM socks it to the frogs on election day
Both sides want to play
How exactly did Macron "stuff" us? A threat to cut off the power not acted upon, a flotilla of trawlers that turns tail after making some sort of a gesture. A really crap EU deal that doesn't seem to suit us or the French. Surely he has just demonstrated his own ineffectiveness.
He has no more stuffed us than Boris has become Admiral Thomas Cochrane, it's just all posturing for the press and elections.
Has anyone considered that Macron and Boris (who text each other regularly, and clearly admire each other on some level) have partly orchestrated the drama?
Macron gets electoral benefit by standing up to Les Rosbifs over fish. Boris gets fantastic headlines on election day by sending in the navy.
Nothing happens. Both men stay in office and are fêted as heroes.
They then chuckle to each other after.
But everyone texts Boris regularly....
Wow. You didn't use the phrase, The Clown.
You know, THE CLOWN? That funny way you refer to him, like, eighteen times a day, every day? "The Clown is doing it because the Clown is so incompetent he has to clown about doing clownish things to ensure no-one realises that at heart he's just A CLOWN.." or something.
You must be ill.
It's a useful antidote to all those who talk about him as if he's a close mate of theirs.
I don't think anyone here does that for either Boris or Keir.
Mr. Sandpit, Asians (in the American sense) don't count as a minority according to CRT/woke lunatics. They count as white. Because they're not oppressed. They've had the temerity to be successful and therefore contradict The Theory.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
This why the Labour Party are going to be far less patient with Starmer's failings than they were with Corbo. Lack of meme appeal.
Corbyn made a lot of people feel better about themselves. I like Starmer, but hes got a challenge in making people face up to a difficult situation for the party.
Although election days aren’t the same without an early morning delivery finishing about now.
Good morning everyone.
Agree, Mr B2; no organising the first tellers nowadays, either. It is bight and sunny here though; reminds me of two beautiful mornings in early May 1997; May 1st and 2nd! Ah, memories!
I have tellers out at my three polling stations and deliverers out delivering. Knocking up from midday.
EDIT: Us cockroaches don't give up easily!
Anno Domini has caught up with me!
Just voted.
It seems at 9:30am I was number 32 vote in my ward.
I had forgotten I have the opportunity to help remove our rather obssessive Police and Crime Commissioner.
Which way round did you arrange your Lib Dem & Tory votes for that ?
One of them :-) .
I can call the County Seat for the Ashfield Independents, since she had 82% last time. And currently no scandals in this ward.
I'm always boring and cast my vote with an X. Just curious if anyone ever tries to be funny or similar with their vote, in a way that doesn't spoil it?
I was wondering for instance if you were to eg draw a smiley face in one candidates box, and a sad face in all other candidates, then would that be a spoilt ballot or a 'clear preference'?
Spoilt, although I have seen a bizarre decision by a returning officer - Election for two places, 2 LDs, 2 Con and 1 Lab on ballot paper. Someone had voted for one of the Cons and then scrubbed it out (obliterated the whole area) and put a cross against Lab.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Why would that be spoilt instead of a clear preference? What's the rule that applies?
I heard a story once, possibly apocryphal, that someone wrote "Dick" in all boxes but one and "Not a dick" in one. That was deemed a valid vote as there was a clear preference.
Does it not work that way?
It is years since I have been trained on this so don't take this as official but any mark in the appropriate box (with the exception of anything that could be construed as identification, which will automatically be deemed as spoilt) seems to be taken as a vote, therefore it will count as 2 votes and therefore spoilt (if only one vote is permitted). Hence the example I gave, which was clearly nonsense. If there is any doubt it will be counted as spoilt.
A drawing of a penis clearly in one box is an interesting one.
Also writing Dick on the ballot paper might fall foul of the identification rule by an over zealous returning officer even though it is clear that it is no such thing.
So I am pretty sure a sad face against the one you don't want and a smiley face against the one you do want will get rejected and put to the agents to discuss, but rejected.
A mark doesnt even need to be in a box. Circle one name, or cross through everyone but one candidate and these are advised to be counted. Penises, which were up in 2019, are almost always counted.
Are penises still counted if they're not 'up'?
I've long argued the tumescence, or flacidity, of the member in question is relevant to if it is a positive indication of support.
- no grouping students by ability - no Algebra for 8th graders - no Calculus for high schoolers...
Yep, math is racist apparently.
(The ‘accelerated math’ programmes were dominated by Asians and middle-class whites, with few working-class whites and blacks participating).
How shocking. But aiui our state schools (mostly) do not run accelerated maths programmes, and calculus was stripped out of O-levels and GCSEs decades ago (and replaced with probability and set theory which is why comedians can make jokes about Venn diagrams). Do our 8th graders do algebra? Is that the same as what we now call Year 8?
Come to think of it, why did we adopt this Year X scheme in the first place? When I were a lad, you started back in the first year every time you moved up a school. Jumpers for goalposts!
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
I still dont know how he did it. Nothing he said was particularly unique and although he had a gentle, sincere manner (most of the time) he wasnt the strongest performer among the Left. It wasn't merely that people turned on May, he really did fire people up. It didn't work out or sustain itself, but it was a little impressive how much those who liked him did so.
In my experience among colleagues in academia there were a few lefties who were genuinely fired up by Corbyn as he didn't have the timidity of Miliband (they felt a bit let down by 'red' Ed not being red enough). Mostly though, the more centrist people I knew - many of whom had voted for Cameron - wanted to (a) give the Conservatives a good kicking for Brexit, particularly as May seemed focused on a very hard Brexit and (b) believed Labour would pivot to a second referendum or at least ensure a soft Brexit if elected. They also thought Labour, if elected, would have to be in coalition with the LDs which would limit any damage Corbyn could do.
I'm always boring and cast my vote with an X. Just curious if anyone ever tries to be funny or similar with their vote, in a way that doesn't spoil it?
I was wondering for instance if you were to eg draw a smiley face in one candidates box, and a sad face in all other candidates, then would that be a spoilt ballot or a 'clear preference'?
Spoilt, although I have seen a bizarre decision by a returning officer - Election for two places, 2 LDs, 2 Con and 1 Lab on ballot paper. Someone had voted for one of the Cons and then scrubbed it out (obliterated the whole area) and put a cross against Lab.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Why would that be spoilt instead of a clear preference? What's the rule that applies?
I heard a story once, possibly apocryphal, that someone wrote "Dick" in all boxes but one and "Not a dick" in one. That was deemed a valid vote as there was a clear preference.
Does it not work that way?
It is years since I have been trained on this so don't take this as official but any mark in the appropriate box (with the exception of anything that could be construed as identification, which will automatically be deemed as spoilt) seems to be taken as a vote, therefore it will count as 2 votes and therefore spoilt (if only one vote is permitted). Hence the example I gave, which was clearly nonsense. If there is any doubt it will be counted as spoilt.
A drawing of a penis clearly in one box is an interesting one.
Also writing Dick on the ballot paper might fall foul of the identification rule by an over zealous returning officer even though it is clear that it is no such thing.
So I am pretty sure a sad face against the one you don't want and a smiley face against the one you do want will get rejected and put to the agents to discuss, but rejected.
A mark doesnt even need to be in a box. Circle one name, or cross through everyone but one candidate and these are advised to be counted. Penises, which were up in 2019, are almost always counted.
Are penises still counted if they're not 'up'?
Of course, what isn't realised is that if people draw a penis side someone they think they're voting against them. Or so I'm told.
very good OP. Worth remembering Sinn Fein came from relatively nowhere in the last Irish election by blindsiding everyone with this issue. SKS take note.
- no grouping students by ability - no Algebra for 8th graders - no Calculus for high schoolers...
Yep, math is racist apparently.
(The ‘accelerated math’ programmes were dominated by Asians and middle-class whites, with few working-class whites and blacks participating).
How shocking. But aiui our state schools (mostly) do not run accelerated maths programmes, and calculus was stripped out of O-levels and GCSEs decades ago (and replaced with probability and set theory which is why comedians can make jokes about Venn diagrams). Do our 8th graders do algebra? Is that the same as what we now call Year 8?
Come to think of it, why did we adopt this Year X scheme in the first place? When I were a lad, you started back in the first year every time you moved up a school. Jumpers for goalposts!
The year whatever it is business confuses the hell out of me when school-age grandchildren or the teachers in the family talk about it.
I have in various degrees been involved in elections. This year seems to be the first year since 2010 that the Conservatives have the big mo. Positive message spread with enthusiasm. 2017 GE started like that but it fell away very quickly.
Labour just seem to be a collection of fun sponges spreading misery and doom everywhere they go.
- no grouping students by ability - no Algebra for 8th graders - no Calculus for high schoolers...
Yep, math is racist apparently.
(The ‘accelerated math’ programmes were dominated by Asians and middle-class whites, with few working-class whites and blacks participating).
How shocking. But aiui our state schools (mostly) do not run accelerated maths programmes, and calculus was stripped out of O-levels and GCSEs decades ago (and replaced with probability and set theory which is why comedians can make jokes about Venn diagrams). Do our 8th graders do algebra? Is that the same as what we now call Year 8?
Come to think of it, why did we adopt this Year X scheme in the first place? When I were a lad, you started back in the first year every time you moved up a school. Jumpers for goalposts!
The year whatever it is business confuses the hell out of me when school-age grandchildren or the teachers in the family talk about it.
I always thought the old system of counting "one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "six again" had it's own complications. Still, I guess only the smart kids had to deal with the whole 6+1 = 6 issue
What Labour basically need as a leader is a soft-left, reasonably charismatic, pro-ish Brexit, pro-Britain leader.
Boris Johnson? Or is he too far left what with the high government spending?
What I expect to happen when Starmer gets kicked to the curb is a lot of lefties pointing to 2017 and saying see we told you left was the way to go we only failed because we werent left enough
I have a strong suspicion that Boris is about to be "lucky" again. No doubt those who insist on calling him Bozo or the clown will have their excuses ready once more.
I don't think it is down to luck. Johnson is a natural campaigner, and because of his complete lack of moral compass is a shameless liar, willing to promise whatever voters want. Aided by an opposition split into multiple parties, with no real alternative vision or inspiring leaders he is nailed on to win.
He is still an appalling PM. Campaigning skill and governing well seem to have zero correlation.
Hence why you were convinced that you were going to run out of PPE early last year and ... didn't?
Or hence why we got the vaccine rollout before any other major nation in the world?
If this is governing badly, I'm curious what governing well looks like?
Well, 70 508 excess deaths is clearly better than 117 049 excess deaths, if the countries are basically the same size. That's France vs. UK. 38 606 excess deaths in a larger country (Germany) is clearly better still. Denmark is currently on negative excess deaths.
To be fair, there are a bunch of countries that have done worse than the UK.
Going by the percentages, there are places like Bulgaria, Colombia, Russia. If your argument is that Johnson's Britain is great because it's done better than that, you're welcome. Italy and the US are slightly worse than the UK (but there's not much in it)- that seems to be what happens when you have leading politicians who are TV personalities with dodgy attitudes to women and foreigners.
Great vaccine rollout, yes. Thank goodness, because the UK botched everything else.
Its sweet that Countries death figures are still believed
Excess deaths is a statistic not as easily manipulated as others.
France has had a higher positivity rate than the UK, many more in hosiptal with Covid, yet 40% less excess deaths. Go figure.
I have a strong suspicion that Boris is about to be "lucky" again. No doubt those who insist on calling him Bozo or the clown will have their excuses ready once more.
I don't think it is down to luck. Johnson is a natural campaigner, and because of his complete lack of moral compass is a shameless liar, willing to promise whatever voters want. Aided by an opposition split into multiple parties, with no real alternative vision or inspiring leaders he is nailed on to win.
He is still an appalling PM. Campaigning skill and governing well seem to have zero correlation.
Hence why you were convinced that you were going to run out of PPE early last year and ... didn't?
Or hence why we got the vaccine rollout before any other major nation in the world?
If this is governing badly, I'm curious what governing well looks like?
Well, 70 508 excess deaths is clearly better than 117 049 excess deaths, if the countries are basically the same size. That's France vs. UK. 38 606 excess deaths in a larger country (Germany) is clearly better still. Denmark is currently on negative excess deaths.
To be fair, there are a bunch of countries that have done worse than the UK.
Going by the percentages, there are places like Bulgaria, Colombia, Russia. If your argument is that Johnson's Britain is great because it's done better than that, you're welcome. Italy and the US are slightly worse than the UK (but there's not much in it)- that seems to be what happens when you have leading politicians who are TV personalities with dodgy attitudes to women and foreigners.
Great vaccine rollout, yes. Thank goodness, because the UK botched everything else.
Its sweet that Countries death figures are still believed
Excess deaths is a statistic not as easily manipulated as others.
France has had a higher positivity rate than the UK, many more in hosiptal with Covid, yet 40% less excess deaths. Go figure.
Fewer people died?
Or France had a bad year some time in the last five years (e.g. a heat wave or flu) that didn't happen (to the same extent, at least) in the UK and so the baseline is higher (and the bad year potentially killed some of those more vulnerable to death from Covid).
Using excess deaths is not a panacea. Arguably the worst option, apart from all the others
Edit: not obviously the case having just looked at deaths/1000 population 2015-2019. Hmm...
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Boris is a rock star.
Starmer is the rock stars accountant.
We kind of expect our rock stars to be badly behaved.
Not saying it's right, but it's how it is.
A Rock Star? But he has based his "Boris" character on Benny Hill.
So this must mean "Ernie (The Fastest Milkman in the West)" is a rock anthem.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Boris is a rock star.
Starmer is the rock stars accountant.
We kind of expect our rock stars to be badly behaved.
Not saying it's right, but it's how it is.
A Rock Star? But he has based his "Boris" character on Benny Hill.
So this must mean "Ernie (The Fastest Milkman in the West)" is a rock anthem.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
I think that is simple. In 2017 Labour became the anti-Brexit vote. The young are generally anti-Brexit so we saw a dip in voting for other parties in favour of the big two. By 2019 Labour had switched to being the pro-Brexit party hence the corresponding shift back to LibDem/Green etc.
I know centrists tell this to make themselves feel better but the reality shows Labour 2017 vote wasn't about Brexit at all.
Is this because it wasn't something people could pick as an option?
No, look at the Conservatives
Brexit 21%
Also I've posted polling on here before about why Labour lost votes...
And you'll be surprised to hear that no it isn't because young people loved Corbyn because he was fighting for remain when the manifesto was respecting the result and then realised he was an evil brexiteer when he offered a second referendum.
Most Labour votes (biggest category) were lost because of people leaving to vote for Brexit (and against a second referendum)
I realise that whilst the polling backs all this up it doesn't work as a centrist or right wing narrative so lets ignore this and go back to the fairy tales about what we wish people had voted for.
What Labour basically need as a leader is a soft-left, reasonably charismatic, pro-ish Brexit, pro-Britain leader.
Dan Jarvis hits all of those boxes and has decent experience. The fact he is Northern is a bonus although than in itself I feel is a bit patronising. The North voted for posh Blair for goodness sake.
Dan Jarvis was tomorrow's man, yesterday. Much like Burnham.
I am still expecting a resounding win for the Conservatives and a drubbing for Labour. These are odd times and I am still not convinced this is how GE2024 plays out.
Starmer needs to clear out the Shadow Cabinet and get himself a profile, and not by campaigning in fridges, on bikes, in a hi-viz labcoat or worse still in a boxing club or at John Lewis.
I have a strong suspicion that Boris is about to be "lucky" again. No doubt those who insist on calling him Bozo or the clown will have their excuses ready once more.
I don't think it is down to luck. Johnson is a natural campaigner, and because of his complete lack of moral compass is a shameless liar, willing to promise whatever voters want. Aided by an opposition split into multiple parties, with no real alternative vision or inspiring leaders he is nailed on to win.
He is still an appalling PM. Campaigning skill and governing well seem to have zero correlation.
Hence why you were convinced that you were going to run out of PPE early last year and ... didn't?
Or hence why we got the vaccine rollout before any other major nation in the world?
If this is governing badly, I'm curious what governing well looks like?
Well, 70 508 excess deaths is clearly better than 117 049 excess deaths, if the countries are basically the same size. That's France vs. UK. 38 606 excess deaths in a larger country (Germany) is clearly better still. Denmark is currently on negative excess deaths.
To be fair, there are a bunch of countries that have done worse than the UK.
Going by the percentages, there are places like Bulgaria, Colombia, Russia. If your argument is that Johnson's Britain is great because it's done better than that, you're welcome. Italy and the US are slightly worse than the UK (but there's not much in it)- that seems to be what happens when you have leading politicians who are TV personalities with dodgy attitudes to women and foreigners.
Great vaccine rollout, yes. Thank goodness, because the UK botched everything else.
Its sweet that Countries death figures are still believed
Excess deaths is a statistic not as easily manipulated as others.
France has had a higher positivity rate than the UK, many more in hosiptal with Covid, yet 40% less excess deaths. Go figure.
Fewer people died?
Or France had a bad year some time in the last five years (e.g. a heat wave or flu) that didn't happen (to the same extent, at least) in the UK and so the baseline is higher (and the bad year potentially killed some of those more vulnerable to death from Covid).
Using excess deaths is not a panacea. Arguably the worst option, apart from all the others
Edit: not obviously the case having just looked at deaths/1000 population 2015-2019. Hmm...
For years our anti-fattie campaigners held up the French as paragons of sensible eating, and Covid-19 hits obese patients harder. That might explain some of it. France has also used curfews as part of its anti-Covid strategy where we have not. Whether that alters who gets it, I could not say.
Maybe we should talk about Starmer when today's results are known but to be honest I do not see any point in replacing him
He comes across as a bland metropolitan lawyer who is pleasant enough, but does not really convince politically
Yesterday, while Boris was happily waving to everyone from his bike ride with Andy Street and sending the navy to Jersey, Starmer was with Tracy Brabin at a food bank putting token items into a carrier bag. Visiting a food bank simply does not cut through to most voters
To be honest I do not think Starmer is the problem, it is more that Boris and the conservatives have moved onto labour's territory and in a similar way to the SNP, are steady eclipsing Labour as a relevant political party
I really do not know how Labour counter this, but I do not see removing Starmer as being a positive thing to do
Boris is a rock star.
Starmer is the rock stars accountant.
We kind of expect our rock stars to be badly behaved.
Not saying it's right, but it's how it is.
A Rock Star? But he has based his "Boris" character on Benny Hill.
So this must mean "Ernie (The Fastest Milkman in the West)" is a rock anthem.
Wasn't Bill Oddie leading songwriter one year?
Oddie was quite serious about it, and the Goodies were a very successful chart act for a year or two in a lighter Bonzo Dog DooDah Band kind of a way.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
I think that is simple. In 2017 Labour became the anti-Brexit vote. The young are generally anti-Brexit so we saw a dip in voting for other parties in favour of the big two. By 2019 Labour had switched to being the pro-Brexit party hence the corresponding shift back to LibDem/Green etc.
I know centrists tell this to make themselves feel better but the reality shows Labour 2017 vote wasn't about Brexit at all.
Is this because it wasn't something people could pick as an option?
No, look at the Conservatives
Brexit 21%
Also I've posted polling on here before about why Labour lost votes...
And you'll be surprised to hear that no it isn't because young people loved Corbyn because he was fighting for remain when the manifesto was respecting the result and then realised he was an evil brexiteer when he offered a second referendum.
Most Labour votes (biggest category) were lost because of people leaving to vote for Brexit (and against a second referendum)
I realise that whilst the polling backs all this up it doesn't work as a centrist or right wing narrative so lets ignore this and go back to the fairy tales about what we wish people had voted for.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree, but then so might Starmer be barking up a different wrong tree.
When populist xenophobic, anti- wokeism is the order of the day I am not sure where any party of the left, or centre left can go. Although with respect to Jeremy, he at least ticked a couple of those boxes.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Corbyn (in 2017, when he was effectively a meme) also united "the left" and "the young" in a way I have not seen in my lifetime. That gloss was gone by 2019 and thus the effect.
I think that is simple. In 2017 Labour became the anti-Brexit vote. The young are generally anti-Brexit so we saw a dip in voting for other parties in favour of the big two. By 2019 Labour had switched to being the pro-Brexit party hence the corresponding shift back to LibDem/Green etc.
I know centrists tell this to make themselves feel better but the reality shows Labour 2017 vote wasn't about Brexit at all.
Is this because it wasn't something people could pick as an option?
No, look at the Conservatives
Brexit 21%
Also I've posted polling on here before about why Labour lost votes...
And you'll be surprised to hear that no it isn't because young people loved Corbyn because he was fighting for remain when the manifesto was respecting the result and then realised he was an evil brexiteer when he offered a second referendum.
Most Labour votes (biggest category) were lost because of people leaving to vote for Brexit (and against a second referendum)
I realise that whilst the polling backs all this up it doesn't work as a centrist or right wing narrative so lets ignore this and go back to the fairy tales about what we wish people had voted for.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree, but then so might Starmer be barking up a different wrong tree.
When populist xenophobic, anti- wokeism is the order of the day I am not sure where any party of the left, or centre left can go. Although with respect to Jeremy, he at least ticked a couple of those boxes.
They were talking about a previous election which I provided the facts on, to contrast with fairy tales some like to tell themselves, I wasn't talking about how to win a future election in my post at all.
That isn't my job now, it is to sit back and laugh at Starmer failing.
Edit: Starmer doesn't like trees, they don't give him money or applaud him for kicking for left.
No offence to anyone on here but I basically discount any polling day anecdote on turnout.
I think they're only useful for referendums, for example when turnout was utterly off the scale in the 2014 IndyRef and we heard multiple stories of how the apathetic/disillusioned WWC were turning out en-mass for the 2016 Brexit vote.
Less things to get wrong with a referendum and it's far more of an unusual pattern, such that it actually tells you something.
Comments
It's the Telegraph of course, but he does make some telling points. Johnson has grabbed the centre ground and Starmer is not being allowed near it.
I agree the foodbank photoshoot was a mistake. Who thinks of this stuff? It is a total cliche and unlike Johnson's cliche of a bike ride dangerously close to the canal there are no laughs lurking.
But also the foodbank film just reinforces the GOTV operation I suppose of people who already fret about the massive increase in foodbank use.
Jess Phillips is the best "Labour Johnson" but she has a habit of saying some quite stupid things and I don't feel has quite enough leadership experience, yet. Given a few years though, she would be high on my list. Maybe one for 2029 or later.
Personally I really rate Dan Jarvis but he seems to never be bothered to stand.
I recall years ago saying when Labour were trying to weaponise this that I thought it a good thing. That I donate myself and that charities are limited by donations not demand. So more parcels being given out means more donations. I was called a heartless Tory for this.
The irony is that food banks are possibly a prime example of Cameron's Big Society idea.
What is currently left are a few islands completely separated from each other.
There's no point trying to out-Boris Boris.
That's why the running the blockade of Jersey has been left to the "M*ng Fleet" (as they are rather uncharitably known in the RN) of the River Class.
How is Jess Phillips going to acquire leadership experience between now and 2029? This is why I think you're going to end up with Sadiq Khan. Like Johnson, he can point to high-profile experience of actually doing stuff and winning elections.
To me this was clearly correcting a mistake, although if there is any doubt it should be counted as spoilt.
Returning officers decision 1 Lab, 1 Con !
I was agent for the LDs and was pretty sure we had won clearly so I didn't challenge it. I did worry for a few minutes as you challenge the disputed ballots before you officially know the result. The other agents were equally bemused, but also thought it was academic.
Not all wearing masks, although those that weren't put one on before being allowed in. Only two people allowed in together if they were obviously a couple.... elderly lady fussing over husband and his glasses. My mask makes them steam up!
Took longer than usual as we had three different ballot papers.
No tellers, but then we rarely do have here, even in a General.
Going to take a while to count, I suspect; all ballot papers in same box. One was a significantly different colour, two were quite similar.
Foodbank use long term is capped by foodbank donations. If it grew, it means that people were more generous in 2014. The big society was working.
I don't advocate Nandy because she is basically "not Starmer". There is nothing about her for me that makes her any better than him. As good as, probably. Better than, no not convinced. She needs more experience.
Khan is an interesting bet but he's very, very woke and I don't see how he's really much different to Starmer. They have pretty similar backgrounds all told.
Dan Jarvis is the most interesting.
Dan Jarvis hits all of those boxes and has decent experience. The fact he is Northern is a bonus although than in itself I feel is a bit patronising. The North voted for posh Blair for goodness sake.
It's alright for some!
I heard a story once, possibly apocryphal, that someone wrote "Dick" in all boxes but one and "Not a dick" in one. That was deemed a valid vote as there was a clear preference.
Does it not work that way?
Starmer needs to be pragmatic on some kind of unofficial pact with them
I'm sure that will work. 79th time is the charm.
Not sure what this anecdote has to contribute, or what it means for the future of the Union, but thought I would share my impression.
Anyway, must be off, I am slacking.
It seems at 9:30am I was number 32 vote in my ward.
I had forgotten I have the opportunity to help remove our rather obssessive Police and Crime Commissioner.
Why did Corbyn do so much better in 2017 than Miliband did in 2015 ?
Perhaps because Corbyn talked about things relevant to the 80% such as student debt and housing.
Whereas Miliband talked about things relevant only to the bottom 10% such as zero hours contracts and bedroom taxes.
Yes, I’d love to know who put up the £10k for Binface too.
https://twitter.com/SteveMillerOC/status/1389456546753437699
In the name of “equity”, California DOE’s 2021 Mathematics Framework attacks the idea of gifted students and eliminates opportunities for accelerated math.
- no grouping students by ability
- no Algebra for 8th graders
- no Calculus for high schoolers...
A drawing of a penis clearly in one box is an interesting one.
Also writing Dick on the ballot paper might fall foul of the identification rule by an over zealous returning officer even though it is clear that it is no such thing.
So I am pretty sure a sad face against the one you don't want and a smiley face against the one you do want will get rejected and put to the agents to discuss, but rejected.
(The ‘accelerated math’ programmes were dominated by Asians and middle-class whites, with few working-class whites and blacks participating).
It became fashionable to support Corbyn as demonstrated by Glasto, amongst other things. He was a rockstar.
He no longer had that reputation by 2019. It wasn't fashionable anymore.
Despite the levity, when Government Ministers start making threats to deny basics of life to 170k people, this is a serious situation.
Given the previous mix of hundreds of French vessels on the grounds compared to under 100 from Jersey, incidental reduction of the French vessels by say 80% is an excellent idea.
Household poverty today is the same percentage of the population it was 2003 and has barely changed a couple of percent up, a couple of percent down.
So that's partly why our PCSOs were withdrawn.
Emotive issue?
The scoundrels.
I can call the County Seat for the Ashfield Independents, since she had 82% last time. And currently no scandals in this ward.
Come to think of it, why did we adopt this Year X scheme in the first place? When I were a lad, you started back in the first year every time you moved up a school. Jumpers for goalposts!
https://twitter.com/LukeSmithF1/status/1390231992025878533
Mercedes need to save money because of the cost cap and engine development freeze, and both companies are UK - based.
RB are hoping they can get some of the lead engineers Mercedes really don't want to lose, and are apparently offering serious cash to them.
Labour just seem to be a collection of fun sponges spreading misery and doom everywhere they go.
Using excess deaths is not a panacea. Arguably the worst option, apart from all the others
Edit: not obviously the case having just looked at deaths/1000 population 2015-2019. Hmm...
So this must mean "Ernie (The Fastest Milkman in the West)" is a rock anthem.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/07/11/why-people-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener
Brexit doesn't even make it as a category
Is this because it wasn't something people could pick as an option?
No, look at the Conservatives
Brexit 21%
Also I've posted polling on here before about why Labour lost votes...
And you'll be surprised to hear that no it isn't because young people loved Corbyn because he was fighting for remain when the manifesto was respecting the result and then realised he was an evil brexiteer when he offered a second referendum.
Most Labour votes (biggest category) were lost because of people leaving to vote for Brexit (and against a second referendum)
I realise that whilst the polling backs all this up it doesn't work as a centrist or right wing narrative so lets ignore this and go back to the fairy tales about what we wish people had voted for.
I am still expecting a resounding win for the Conservatives and a drubbing for Labour. These are odd times and I am still not convinced this is how GE2024 plays out.
Starmer needs to clear out the Shadow Cabinet and get himself a profile, and not by campaigning in fridges, on bikes, in a hi-viz labcoat or worse still in a boxing club or at John Lewis.
When populist xenophobic, anti- wokeism is the order of the day I am not sure where any party of the left, or centre left can go. Although with respect to Jeremy, he at least ticked a couple of those boxes.
That isn't my job now, it is to sit back and laugh at Starmer failing.
Edit: Starmer doesn't like trees, they don't give him money or applaud him for kicking for left.
Labour to hold Llanelli and regain Rhondda.
More to follow.
I think they're only useful for referendums, for example when turnout was utterly off the scale in the 2014 IndyRef and we heard multiple stories of how the apathetic/disillusioned WWC were turning out en-mass for the 2016 Brexit vote.
Less things to get wrong with a referendum and it's far more of an unusual pattern, such that it actually tells you something.
Or more accurately, stagflation.