I think Raab is a Lib Dem gain next time round, time to check some odds
We don't want him.
He'll probably use boundary changes as a reason to move to a safer seat. He could take over Chris Grayling's seat in Epsom and Ewell for example. What's happened to Grayling? He seems to have disappeared.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
Not able to watch the cricket on TV as WFH today, but it's useful that I can hear the cheers through the open window in my home office so I know when to check the BBC Sport feed. Headingley is roughly 750 metres away.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
I do acknowledge her, without Thatcher there would be no Holyrood, no dominant SNP and the SCons wouldn't be consigned to eternal irrelevance in Scotland. Hail Thatch!
And without the SNP there might have been no Thatcher government!
win-win!
SNP still here, Thatcher not. Not even Thatcherism in fact..
I disagree. We are perhaps moving away from Thatcherism and have been, slowly, since 1997, but the UK economy is still fundamentally aligned with what Thatcherism put in place. Or to put it another way, it bears a lot more resemblance to the UK economy in 1990 than 1979.
Indeed. In 1979 it was a statist trade union dominated basket case. Thatcher is the reason so many of us started small businesses. She enabled the enterprise economy and dismantled nationalised "industries". This was then largely copied in many other countries. She changed the world
Although infamously left the railways alone, a very wise decision. Sadly she underfunded them and made them crap.
She didn't make them crap, they already were crap. We forget that at the time they were massively in decline and they were massively f'ed up by the militant trade unions
Also there was collective bargaining, so if there was a dispute in Newcastle, they were on strike in Cornwall too. Strikes fell off a cliff when ballots were brought in, much to the shock and consternation of union leaders.
These days you simply cannot read about stuff like strike votes by show of hands in car parks, with workers being intimidated by conveners or shop stewards with I know where you live, I know where your kids go to school etc.
Stories like these were legion in working class communities at the time. And that's another reason Thatcher was popular. She liberated working class people from their gatekeepers.
What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?
There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,
It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.
Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.
As if those people will stay in the same place just waiting for the bombs.
Edmundintokyo has some Trump-deranged infatuation with Biden, which has unfortunately turned him into an idiot (on this issue). It is sad. I hope and believe he will recover soon
Biden is permanently fucked by the Kabulclasm. You could see it in his sad, confused, rather rheumy eyes last night. However this certainly doesn’t mean the Return of Trump. The Democrats need to get a grip and find anew younger candidate and they will beat him easily
I find your take more bizarre than his - that the failure of the long American intervention in Afghanistan is down to the bungled exit rather than it being ill-conceived and badly executed throughout.
To me this smacks of placing logic and history and objective analysis to one side in order to put on a festival of "Joe Biden is a senile old wanker" punditry.
I think if you're honest you'll admit I'm right on this.
We have no argument (for once). I agree - and I have said so before on here. After9/11. we/America should have gone in, shattered the Taliban, scattered Al Qaeda, then immediately left, leaving the promise that, if ever Afghanistan exported terror again, the USAF would come back and bomb the country into the Bronze Age
My point is more pointed. The whole Afghan war has been an error. That did not mean the US/Allied departure had to be a further calamity. Yet it is. And this shameful exit is all on Biden
Agree with all of that - except that a large part of any blame for the miserable conclusion to this affair is shared with Trump. Either way a withdrawal after last year's deal was always going to be some sort of shitshow, and stuff like "should have kept Bagram open" is just quibbling.
Thatcher was a superb politician. BoJo is nothing close
She was okay until about 1987. After that she stopped listening to advice from anyone with different views to her, which is probably what led to her downfall in 1990.
Coincidentally around about when the Oil price collapsed.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
If she was still alive and in office Brexit would never have happened.
I agree. I think she would have seen the rising danger of euroscepticism, she would therefore have called a referendum on Maastrict, the Constitution or Lisbon, any of these would have returned a No vote.
The result could not have been ignored (or "rerun") by the EU. So Britain would have established a formal semi-detached relationship with the EU, without the tragic sudden rupture of Brexit. We could have kept the best of Free Movement and the Single Market, while letting the core EU Federalise. Win/win for all
Instead, she fell, then a procession of lying europhiles took over (Major, Blair. Brown) and here we are
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
That wasn't the question. It wasn't how we got here, it was from where we are now.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
That wasn't the question.
The point was we only have the politics of today because of Thatcher.
Though I suspect she would have easily beaten Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
She handed a stick to every bully in every school and pointed out the target.
What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?
There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,
It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.
Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.
As if those people will stay in the same place just waiting for the bombs.
Edmundintokyo has some Trump-deranged infatuation with Biden, which has unfortunately turned him into an idiot (on this issue). It is sad. I hope and believe he will recover soon
Biden is permanently fucked by the Kabulclasm. You could see it in his sad, confused, rather rheumy eyes last night. However this certainly doesn’t mean the Return of Trump. The Democrats need to get a grip and find anew younger candidate and they will beat him easily
I find your take more bizarre than his - that the failure of the long American intervention in Afghanistan is down to the bungled exit rather than it being ill-conceived and badly executed throughout.
To me this smacks of placing logic and history and objective analysis to one side in order to put on a festival of "Joe Biden is a senile old wanker" punditry.
I think if you're honest you'll admit I'm right on this.
We have no argument (for once). I agree - and I have said so before on here. After9/11. we/America should have gone in, shattered the Taliban, scattered Al Qaeda, then immediately left, leaving the promise that, if ever Afghanistan exported terror again, the USAF would come back and bomb the country into the Bronze Age
My point is more pointed. The whole Afghan war has been an error. That did not mean the US/Allied departure had to be a further calamity. Yet it is. And this shameful exit is all on Biden
Agree with all of that - except that a large part of any blame for the miserable conclusion to this affair is shared with Trump. Either way a withdrawal after last year's deal was always going to be some sort of shitshow, and stuff like "should have kept Bagram open" is just quibbling.
Yes, agreed again, this is a day of concord. The Kabulclasm is shared equally by Trump and Biden, these two demented old gits have contrived to enable the worst withdrawal possible
My one quibble is Bagram. Whoever had that idea should be sacked. It shoulda been the last place evacuated. A solid, defensible US airport 30 miles from Kabul, full of military kit. Why would you quit that FIRST? Insane
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
The big error was not building more in their place, that has really caused big issues down the line.
Indeed, but Thatcher's goal was to get rid of social housing, not build more. Bribing the sitting tenants so they'd vote for you in gratitude was just a happy by-product of the privatisation process.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
She handed a stick to every bully in every school and pointed out the target.
That was certainly not her finest hour, but I think your "weaponise homophobia" is hyperbole. It was a hackhanded attempt to prevent what we would now call woke indoctrination by left wing councils. Doesn't make it right, at all, but it was not "weaponising homophobia"
What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?
There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,
It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.
Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.
As if those people will stay in the same place just waiting for the bombs.
Edmundintokyo has some Trump-deranged infatuation with Biden, which has unfortunately turned him into an idiot (on this issue). It is sad. I hope and believe he will recover soon
Biden is permanently fucked by the Kabulclasm. You could see it in his sad, confused, rather rheumy eyes last night. However this certainly doesn’t mean the Return of Trump. The Democrats need to get a grip and find anew younger candidate and they will beat him easily
I find your take more bizarre than his - that the failure of the long American intervention in Afghanistan is down to the bungled exit rather than it being ill-conceived and badly executed throughout.
To me this smacks of placing logic and history and objective analysis to one side in order to put on a festival of "Joe Biden is a senile old wanker" punditry.
I think if you're honest you'll admit I'm right on this.
We have no argument (for once). I agree - and I have said so before on here. After9/11. we/America should have gone in, shattered the Taliban, scattered Al Qaeda, then immediately left, leaving the promise that, if ever Afghanistan exported terror again, the USAF would come back and bomb the country into the Bronze Age
My point is more pointed. The whole Afghan war has been an error. That did not mean the US/Allied departure had to be a further calamity. Yet it is. And this shameful exit is all on Biden
Agree with all of that - except that a large part of any blame for the miserable conclusion to this affair is shared with Trump. Either way a withdrawal after last year's deal was always going to be some sort of shitshow, and stuff like "should have kept Bagram open" is just quibbling.
Yes, agreed again, this is a day of concord. The Kabulclasm is shared equally by Trump and Biden, these two demented old gits have contrived to enable the worst withdrawal possible
My one quibble is Bagram. Whoever had that idea should be sacked. It shoulda been the last place evacuated. A solid, defensible US airport 30 miles from Kabul, full of military kit. Why would you quit that FIRST? Insane
65km, approximately. Given the vast majority to be evacuated were/are in Kabul, it would essentially have been just another problem on top of the one they have. I don't think it would have made much difference. The problem with all the other scenarios is that once you've decided to pull out, without a stable government in place, it's going to be a mess however you do it.
I never voted for Thatcher. In 1979 I would have but I was a few months too young. By 1983 till about 1990 I was an SDP activist and voted for the Alliance candidate. The first time I voted Tory was for Major in 1992.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Thatcher was a superb politician. BoJo is nothing close
She was okay until about 1987. After that she stopped listening to advice from anyone with different views to her, which is probably what led to her downfall in 1990.
I'm not a fan of term limits (seems a restriction on the right of people to choose who they want) but I recognise that pattern with Tony Blair too. In the last few years in power, he apparently quite obliviously started saying "I" instead of "we". Perhaps after one's been PM for a couple of elections, one starts to feel one's got a personal mandate and can get away with anything without the need for tiresome consultation.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
She handed a stick to every bully in every school and pointed out the target.
On the other hand, that was a lot about being a relatively liberal creature of her time; voting to legalise homosexuality was a big thing for a 1960s Conservative. She may well have thought that was enough, because that's what everyone thinks as they age. The reforms of their youth were right and proper, the ones that come later were perverted and wrong. They're also a bit insulting, because they imply that the youth of today are more liberal, better even, than the oldies of today. We're seeing the same thing now.
Section 28 was partly about that ossification. It was also about a war on Trendy Local Councils, because the Maggie of 1986 was beginning her detachment from reality and starting to see enemies to be brought down everywhere.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
Did you know there's a big photo of Thatcher in the Colony Rooms, in Soho? The famous afternoon drinking club frequented by Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, etc? Very very gay place, and Thatcher liked to drink there, and was liked by many of the denizens. They've told me
She was much more "bohemian" than is generally understood
What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?
There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,
It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.
Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.
As if those people will stay in the same place just waiting for the bombs.
Edmundintokyo has some Trump-deranged infatuation with Biden, which has unfortunately turned him into an idiot (on this issue). It is sad. I hope and believe he will recover soon
Biden is permanently fucked by the Kabulclasm. You could see it in his sad, confused, rather rheumy eyes last night. However this certainly doesn’t mean the Return of Trump. The Democrats need to get a grip and find anew younger candidate and they will beat him easily
I find your take more bizarre than his - that the failure of the long American intervention in Afghanistan is down to the bungled exit rather than it being ill-conceived and badly executed throughout.
To me this smacks of placing logic and history and objective analysis to one side in order to put on a festival of "Joe Biden is a senile old wanker" punditry.
I think if you're honest you'll admit I'm right on this.
We have no argument (for once). I agree - and I have said so before on here. After9/11. we/America should have gone in, shattered the Taliban, scattered Al Qaeda, then immediately left, leaving the promise that, if ever Afghanistan exported terror again, the USAF would come back and bomb the country into the Bronze Age
My point is more pointed. The whole Afghan war has been an error. That did not mean the US/Allied departure had to be a further calamity. Yet it is. And this shameful exit is all on Biden
Agree with all of that - except that a large part of any blame for the miserable conclusion to this affair is shared with Trump. Either way a withdrawal after last year's deal was always going to be some sort of shitshow, and stuff like "should have kept Bagram open" is just quibbling.
Yes, agreed again, this is a day of concord. The Kabulclasm is shared equally by Trump and Biden, these two demented old gits have contrived to enable the worst withdrawal possible
My one quibble is Bagram. Whoever had that idea should be sacked. It shoulda been the last place evacuated. A solid, defensible US airport 30 miles from Kabul, full of military kit. Why would you quit that FIRST? Insane
65km, approximately. Given the vast majority to be evacuated were/are in Kabul, it would essentially have been just another problem on top of the one they have. I don't think it would have made much difference. The problem with all the other scenarios is that once you've decided to pull out, without a stable government in place, it's going to be a mess however you do it.
The main argument for keeping Bagram open seems to be that it could be much more easily defended. If things had got to the point of defending militarily your egress point, I'd imagine shitshow might be a mild description.
It's good to see the FDP back in the game. If I had a vote in Germany that's who I would be going for.
Interestingly the shift has come almost entirely from direct CDU-SPD switchers (unless there are cross-currents that we can't see). People who aren't very political and are just interested in the major party being clearly sensible and on top of the issues and deciding that fits the SPD better at the moment, perhaps.
O/t but anyone seen @isam this morning? In view of his/his girl-friend's possible problems.
Morning
Thanks for asking, Old King Cole
She’s done another test and it’s another negative. She’s got conjunctivitis now though, and the only late night pharmacist open round here yesterday would not sell me anything to sort it because she’s preggers. Doctors appt at 4 and she’s leaning towards having the jab.
Such a tricky decision the jab. She also has chronic migraines and so I worry about blood clotting
Good Morning to you. Surprised she couldn't buy something for conjunctivitis, but some of my one-time colleagues can be over-cautious. At 32 weeks there's unlikely to be any harm which can come to the baby from the vaccine. However, I'm not on the register anymore, so don't have to keep myself up to date. As I said, a chat with the midwife would be my first choice. How long has she been with her current GP? And will it be face to face or telephone?
Wish you ...... all three of you ...... well!
Thanks
She’s got the scan / midwife on Tuesday, so that should help. Docs today is face to face. Been here a couple of years.
Yeah I drive round most of Havering looking for a pharmacy open at 9pm, and when I found one they would serve me!
Pharmacies are getting extremely risk-averse. Many will no longer sell proper cough medicines (ie those with opiates, perfectly legal) and they won't sell potassium citrate to men, so you either have to lie and say it's for your partner or resort to bicarb, which does the job but tastes horrible and makes me feel bloated and constipated
I'm glad I'm well away from running a pharmacy, if only because the Registration Authority, brought in about 25 years ago to replace regulation by the professional body has a reputation for nit-picking. Thee's also an issue that many fewer pharmacies than once upon a time are owner-managed, or owned by very small companies, and the managers allowed much less professional independence than I had when I was running one.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
She handed a stick to every bully in every school and pointed out the target.
Voting to legalise homosexuality was a big deal for a Conservative MP in the 1960's, and would certainly have generated hostility among her constituency party.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
Almost certainly not. She was in the right place at the right time - but the world and Britain have moved on - thanks in Britain's case to her. As Andrew Marr remarked "we're all Thatcher's children now."
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
Did you know there's a big photo of Thatcher in the Colony Rooms, in Soho? The famous afternoon drinking club frequented by Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, etc? Very very gay place, and Thatcher liked to drink there, and was liked by many of the denizens. They've told me
She was much more "bohemian" than is generally understood
I can just imagine her and Franny Bacon discussing the finer points of whatever bit of rough he was squiring.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Lawyers have some useful skills (stay with me on this). They are trained to be analytical and to find the key points in a decision. They are trained to be coherent and to make a rational argument. The better ones at least are a quick read and can pick up data reasonably quickly. All of these give a certain plausibility to them as we see in both the examples of SKS and Harris.
But there is far, far more to being a good politician than that. You need to have ideas, ambitions to improve the world and an ability to work with others, even if you don't agree with them on other matters, to achieve this. Many lawyers find it easier to make a case for someone else than they do for themselves. You need to be flexible and clubbable to build those coalitions. You are even ideally likeable (a big stretch for your average lawyer). I am not so sure that either Harris or SKS score so well on these points.
Maybe, but our erstwhile Columnist and Game Show Host has shown very little clubbability at building coalitions. He unceremoniously chucked everyone out of the party who disagreed with the club he joined.
So forensic Lawyer or casual Game Show Host? I'll take the Lawyer.
The 3/1 you can get at Betfair on Conservatives Most Seats is really solid value.
If anyone is interested in having a punt on Canada, I recommend 338canada.com. It is the Canadian equivalent of Electoral Calculus and is updated daily. It is not partisan. It is showing c 2 in 3 chance of Liberals most seats, so 3 to 1 does sound value.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
She handed a stick to every bully in every school and pointed out the target.
That was certainly not her finest hour, but I think your "weaponise homophobia" is hyperbole. It was a hackhanded attempt to prevent what we would now call woke indoctrination by left wing councils. Doesn't make it right, at all, but it was not "weaponising homophobia"
Then just as now this culture war guff was just an effort to harvest votes by appealing to people's prejudices. 'Woke indoctrination by left wing councils' was in fact providing educational materials to support gay kids and combat homophobia. Section 28 100% was weaponising homophobia, a disgusting and utterly wrong policy, and it was the 'left wing councils' who were on the right side of history.
What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?
There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,
It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.
Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.
As if those people will stay in the same place just waiting for the bombs.
Edmundintokyo has some Trump-deranged infatuation with Biden, which has unfortunately turned him into an idiot (on this issue). It is sad. I hope and believe he will recover soon
Biden is permanently fucked by the Kabulclasm. You could see it in his sad, confused, rather rheumy eyes last night. However this certainly doesn’t mean the Return of Trump. The Democrats need to get a grip and find anew younger candidate and they will beat him easily
I find your take more bizarre than his - that the failure of the long American intervention in Afghanistan is down to the bungled exit rather than it being ill-conceived and badly executed throughout.
To me this smacks of placing logic and history and objective analysis to one side in order to put on a festival of "Joe Biden is a senile old wanker" punditry.
I think if you're honest you'll admit I'm right on this.
We have no argument (for once). I agree - and I have said so before on here. After9/11. we/America should have gone in, shattered the Taliban, scattered Al Qaeda, then immediately left, leaving the promise that, if ever Afghanistan exported terror again, the USAF would come back and bomb the country into the Bronze Age
My point is more pointed. The whole Afghan war has been an error. That did not mean the US/Allied departure had to be a further calamity. Yet it is. And this shameful exit is all on Biden
Agree with all of that - except that a large part of any blame for the miserable conclusion to this affair is shared with Trump. Either way a withdrawal after last year's deal was always going to be some sort of shitshow, and stuff like "should have kept Bagram open" is just quibbling.
Yes, agreed again, this is a day of concord. The Kabulclasm is shared equally by Trump and Biden, these two demented old gits have contrived to enable the worst withdrawal possible
My one quibble is Bagram. Whoever had that idea should be sacked. It shoulda been the last place evacuated. A solid, defensible US airport 30 miles from Kabul, full of military kit. Why would you quit that FIRST? Insane
It had a jail with anywhere up to 5000 inmates in it, its miles from Kabul and has a 37km long perimeter.
Now if you want to exit Kabul based Civilians you have a massive long road to defend and secure.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
Also, all the bullsh8t dreamed up by the left, the civil service, the unions and whatever the equivalent of the wokerati at the time was just met a brick wall. No, no, no.
There would be countless screechings in the left wing press that never went anywhere. It started with the 364 economists who wanted her to abandon Thatcherism in 1980. No. Just no.
U-turn if you want. The lady's not for turning. Thatcher couldn't just weather bad press, she thrived on it. It was her fuel, it fed her. Titanic guts. Balls of steel.
You know, I think I might prefer your Trumpster nuttery to this.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Lawyers have some useful skills (stay with me on this). They are trained to be analytical and to find the key points in a decision. They are trained to be coherent and to make a rational argument. The better ones at least are a quick read and can pick up data reasonably quickly. All of these give a certain plausibility to them as we see in both the examples of SKS and Harris.
But there is far, far more to being a good politician than that. You need to have ideas, ambitions to improve the world and an ability to work with others, even if you don't agree with them on other matters, to achieve this. Many lawyers find it easier to make a case for someone else than they do for themselves. You need to be flexible and clubbable to build those coalitions. You are even ideally likeable (a big stretch for your average lawyer). I am not so sure that either Harris or SKS score so well on these points.
Maybe, but our erstwhile Columnist and Game Show Host has shown very little clubbability at building coalitions. He unceremoniously chucked everyone out of the party who disagreed with the club he joined.
So forensic Lawyer or casual Game Show Host? I'll take the Lawyer.
You need to build coalitions to win power, which Boris did in 2019 convincingly
It's good to see the FDP back in the game. If I had a vote in Germany that's who I would be going for.
Interestingly the shift has come almost entirely from direct CDU-SPD switchers (unless there are cross-currents that we can't see). People who aren't very political and are just interested in the major party being clearly sensible and on top of the issues and deciding that fits the SPD better at the moment, perhaps.
A comparison with the last election suggests there probably is some churn, with CDU supporters generally leaving the party or staying at home.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
You can require another one to be built with the proceeds...
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
You can require another one to be built with the proceeds...
It's good to see the FDP back in the game. If I had a vote in Germany that's who I would be going for.
Interestingly the shift has come almost entirely from direct CDU-SPD switchers (unless there are cross-currents that we can't see). People who aren't very political and are just interested in the major party being clearly sensible and on top of the issues and deciding that fits the SPD better at the moment, perhaps.
Ideologically there is almost no difference between Scholz, who is on the right of the SPD and Laschet who is a Merkel loyalist which also makes it easier for the voters to switch. They simply see Scholz as more competent than Laschet.
If the SPD do win however and the Union go into opposition I would expect the Union to move right
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
You can require another one to be built with the proceeds...
Which, of course, didn't happen!
Because the goal was to get rid of council houses not build more of them.
The 3/1 you can get at Betfair on Conservatives Most Seats is really solid value.
In 2017 they had a vote efficiency problem. If you're happy that has subsided sure - I know some people on here do.
They still do. It has subsided, but not by enough. But they'll need a much bigger lead as @HYUFD notes. Their problem isn't getting to 35%. It is pushing that on. Right now it is the NDP, Greens and especially BQ nibbling at the Liberals share which is their best route to a plurality.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
Did you know there's a big photo of Thatcher in the Colony Rooms, in Soho? The famous afternoon drinking club frequented by Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, etc? Very very gay place, and Thatcher liked to drink there, and was liked by many of the denizens. They've told me
She was much more "bohemian" than is generally understood
She was not homophobic, she voted to legalise homosexuality after all but she was still socially conservative overall as defined by her Methodist upbringing as much as she was fiscally conservative.
The Attorney General of South Dakota Jason Ravnsborg hit and killed a guy with his car and fled the scene.
His defence has been that it was an accident, he didn't know he hit a person, thought he had hit a deer and he did search the area to see what had happened and found nothing.
This much i knew.
Today i learnt the victims glasses were found in his Ravnsborg's car!
The ONS infection survey - NI looks bad, Scotland nowhere near as alarming as the testing results/positivity rates imply - though as this is a lagging indicator, that may change in the weeks to come:
In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 756,900 people within the community population in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 710,100 to 806,200), equating to around 1 in 70 people.
In Wales, the percentage of people testing positive continued to increase in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 25,200 people in Wales had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 18,000 to 33,500), equating to around 1 in 120 people.
In Northern Ireland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 43,300 people in Northern Ireland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 33,600 to 53,900), equating to around 1 in 40 people.
In Scotland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 36,700 people in Scotland had COVID-19, (95% credible interval: 27,600 to 47,200) equating to around 1 in 140 people.
The 3/1 you can get at Betfair on Conservatives Most Seats is really solid value.
In 2017 they had a vote efficiency problem. If you're happy that has subsided sure - I know some people on here do.
I don't think you have to think anything has changed in terms of votes -> seats since the last election. The Conservatives won by 1% of the vote and lost fairly narrowly in terms of seats. They currently lead by 0-1% of the vote. How much would they have needed to win by in 2019 to win most seats? Probably 2-3% absolute max, FPTP is pretty swingy during the vote crossover - the window to win with fewer votes tends to be pretty narrow.
Would I bet at 3/1 that a party with a 0.5% lead now and the trend in their favour will win by 2.5% on election day? Yes I would.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
The equivalent policy today would be to give young/non-homeowners a one-off taxpayer funded gift of, what, 30% of the value of an average council house?
Perhaps a £50k bung.
I’d vote for that. Not gonna happen though.
I can see why she was popular….
They should take the average house price for a home in the area you want to live in and the average earnings for that area and work out what most people need to get to buying that house
Wouldn't everyone 25 just move to Belgravia for the necessary period?
The Attorney General of South Dakota Jason Ravnsborg hit and killed a guy with his car and fled the scene.
His defence has been that it was an accident, he didn't know he hit a person, thought he had hit a deer and he did search the area to see what had happened and found nothing.
This much i knew.
Today i learnt the victims glasses were found in his Ravnsborg's car!
If you search on YouTube you can watch his police interrogation since it was released to the public. He does not come across as very plausible, bluntly.
The 3/1 you can get at Betfair on Conservatives Most Seats is really solid value.
In 2017 they had a vote efficiency problem. If you're happy that has subsided sure - I know some people on here do.
I don't think you have to think anything has changed in terms of votes -> seats since the last election. The Conservatives won by 1% of the vote and lost fairly narrowly in terms of seats. They currently lead by 0-1% of the vote. How much would they have needed to win by in 2019 to win most seats? Probably 2-3% absolute max, FPTP is pretty swingy during the vote crossover - the window to win with fewer votes tends to be pretty narrow.
Would I bet at 3/1 that a party with a 0.5% lead now and the trend in their favour will win by 2.5% on election day? Yes I would.
I could be convinced that they should be 2/1, sure.
The Attorney General of South Dakota Jason Ravnsborg hit and killed a guy with his car and fled the scene.
His defence has been that it was an accident, he didn't know he hit a person, thought he had hit a deer and he did search the area to see what had happened and found nothing.
This much i knew.
Today i learnt the victims glasses were found in his Ravnsborg's car!
If you search on YouTube you can watch his police interrogation since it was released to the public. He does not come across as very plausible, bluntly.
The Scottish Government has recorded over 6,800 new coronavirus cases and four more deaths in the past 24 hours.
It is the highest number of case in a single day recorded since the beginning of the pandemic.
According to the latest Scottish Government figures, 6,835 new cases of Covid-19 have been recorded in the past 24 hours, the number is 1,910 more than Thursday’s cases.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
I do acknowledge her, without Thatcher there would be no Holyrood, no dominant SNP and the SCons wouldn't be consigned to eternal irrelevance in Scotland. Hail Thatch!
And without the SNP there might have been no Thatcher government!
win-win!
SNP still here, Thatcher not. Not even Thatcherism in fact..
I disagree. We are perhaps moving away from Thatcherism and have been, slowly, since 1997, but the UK economy is still fundamentally aligned with what Thatcherism put in place. Or to put it another way, it bears a lot more resemblance to the UK economy in 1990 than 1979.
Indeed. In 1979 it was a statist trade union dominated basket case. Thatcher is the reason so many of us started small businesses. She enabled the enterprise economy and dismantled nationalised "industries". This was then largely copied in many other countries. She changed the world
Although infamously left the railways alone, a very wise decision. Sadly she underfunded them and made them crap.
That is utterly and laughably wrong. British Rail were in a very poor state in the late 1970s. This started to turn around with the introduction of new structures such as sectorisation in the early 1980s. The old system - regions - had utterly failed, with some thinking and rivalries going back thirty years to the Big Four. The sectors gained better management with new thinking, such as the excellent Chris Green.
They had a long way to go, but the idea they declined under Thatcher is rather without foundation.
My one quibble is Bagram. Whoever had that idea should be sacked. It shoulda been the last place evacuated. A solid, defensible US airport 30 miles from Kabul, full of military kit. Why would you quit that FIRST? Insane
Bagram was always difficult to secure because it's fucking enormous with thousands of foreign and local employees. It was also always a cesspit of drug abuse and sexual assault so quitting it was a long treasured goal. The Kabul - Bagram road isn't exactly the M40 and there would be low limit on the amount of people that could be evacuated by that route. All in all, probably not worth it in the judgement of Gen. Miller, the 4* in charge of planning of the withdrawal. If you think you know better than him then have a look at his Wikipedia page.
Having said that, they probably assumed the ANA would hold it longer than 5 weeks and that it would be available right until the last day.
“The Home Office has blamed a ‘technical glitch’ after callers to an emergency Afghanistan helpline were redirected to a washing machine repair company in Coventry.”
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
The big error was not building more in their place, that has really caused big issues down the line.
Indeed, but Thatcher's goal was to get rid of social housing, not build more. Bribing the sitting tenants so they'd vote for you in gratitude was just a happy by-product of the privatisation process.
I think she viewed living in a council house in similar fashion to traveling by bus if you were over 30 - a sign of lack of drive.
Although the political benefit of the sell-off - more Tory voters - was obvious I'm sure it was secondary in her mind and she believed in the policy. But what I've always found interesting is how many on the Right take this as a given - that it wasn't partisan politics driving this policy of hers - and yet when it comes to Blair's immigration policy the very same people insist it was all about "rubbing the Right's face in diversity" and migrants voting Labour, nothing at all to do with the national economic interest.
The 3/1 you can get at Betfair on Conservatives Most Seats is really solid value.
In 2017 they had a vote efficiency problem. If you're happy that has subsided sure - I know some people on here do.
I don't think you have to think anything has changed in terms of votes -> seats since the last election. The Conservatives won by 1% of the vote and lost fairly narrowly in terms of seats. They currently lead by 0-1% of the vote. How much would they have needed to win by in 2019 to win most seats? Probably 2-3% absolute max, FPTP is pretty swingy during the vote crossover - the window to win with fewer votes tends to be pretty narrow.
Would I bet at 3/1 that a party with a 0.5% lead now and the trend in their favour will win by 2.5% on election day? Yes I would.
If the Conservatives did win most seats and O'Toole became PM that would be good news for Boris and give him a new ally in the G7.
O'Toole is pro Brexit and has taken a firm line against statue toppling, whereas Trudeau has tried to say he has sympathy with protestors aims if not their methods
It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
She would have despised Rees-Mogg
I wonder who she would have rated out of the current/recent cabinets? Not JRM, for sure. Not Johnson for anything serious. Saj, probably. Hunt, I imagine. Bear in mind also that she did believe in richesse oblige at a personal level, even if she created an economy which allowed people to accumulate oodles of cash and not give much back to society. (See her remarks on the Good Samaritan.)
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
Also, all the bullsh8t dreamed up by the left, the civil service, the unions and whatever the equivalent of the wokerati at the time was just met a brick wall. No, no, no.
There would be countless screechings in the left wing press that never went anywhere. It started with the 364 economists who wanted her to abandon Thatcherism in 1980. No. Just no.
U-turn if you want. The lady's not for turning. Thatcher couldn't just weather bad press, she thrived on it. It was her fuel, it fed her. Titanic guts. Balls of steel.
You know, I think I might prefer your Trumpster nuttery to this.
Is that because "Trumpster nuttery" is easier to laugh at than the fact that the person most hated by those on the left, Margaret Thatcher, was the greatest politician Britain has ever produced?
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
The big error was not building more in their place, that has really caused big issues down the line.
Indeed, but Thatcher's goal was to get rid of social housing, not build more. Bribing the sitting tenants so they'd vote for you in gratitude was just a happy by-product of the privatisation process.
I think she viewed living in a council house in similar fashion to traveling by bus if you were over 30 - a sign of lack of drive.
Although the political benefit of the sell-off - more Tory voters - was obvious I'm sure it was secondary in her mind and she believed in the policy. But what I've always found interesting is how many on the Right take this as a given - that it wasn't partisan politics driving this policy of hers - and yet when it comes to Blair's immigration policy the very same people insist it was all about "rubbing the Right's face in diversity" and migrants voting Labour, nothing at all to do with the national economic interest.
I mean a former Blair aide is where that quote came from.
“The Home Office has blamed a ‘technical glitch’ after callers to an emergency Afghanistan helpline were redirected to a washing machine repair company in Coventry.”
The ONS infection survey - NI looks bad, Scotland nowhere near as alarming as the testing results/positivity rates imply - though as this is a lagging indicator, that may change in the weeks to come:
In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 756,900 people within the community population in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 710,100 to 806,200), equating to around 1 in 70 people.
In Wales, the percentage of people testing positive continued to increase in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 25,200 people in Wales had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 18,000 to 33,500), equating to around 1 in 120 people.
In Northern Ireland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 43,300 people in Northern Ireland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 33,600 to 53,900), equating to around 1 in 40 people.
In Scotland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 36,700 people in Scotland had COVID-19, (95% credible interval: 27,600 to 47,200) equating to around 1 in 140 people.
It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
She would have despised Rees-Mogg
I wonder who she would have rated out of the current/recent cabinets? Not JRM, for sure. Not Johnson for anything serious. Saj, probably. Hunt, I imagine. Bear in mind also that she did believe in richesse oblige at a personal level, even if she created an economy which allowed people to accumulate oodles of cash and not give much back to society. (See her remarks on the Good Samaritan.)
I think she would be spinning in her grave if she knew the terrible depth that the current "fuck business" Tory Party has descended to
It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
The likes of Rees Mogg did very well under Thatcher. They do under all PMs tbf but they did particularly well out of her tenure. And, as you say, so did some working class people in Essex. Being able to commute into Liverpool St station was the key qualification in the meritocracy she unleashed.
The ONS infection survey - NI looks bad, Scotland nowhere near as alarming as the testing results/positivity rates imply - though as this is a lagging indicator, that may change in the weeks to come:
In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 756,900 people within the community population in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 710,100 to 806,200), equating to around 1 in 70 people.
In Wales, the percentage of people testing positive continued to increase in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 25,200 people in Wales had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 18,000 to 33,500), equating to around 1 in 120 people.
In Northern Ireland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 43,300 people in Northern Ireland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 33,600 to 53,900), equating to around 1 in 40 people.
In Scotland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 36,700 people in Scotland had COVID-19, (95% credible interval: 27,600 to 47,200) equating to around 1 in 140 people.
The ONS infection survey - NI looks bad, Scotland nowhere near as alarming as the testing results/positivity rates imply - though as this is a lagging indicator, that may change in the weeks to come:
In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 756,900 people within the community population in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 710,100 to 806,200), equating to around 1 in 70 people.
In Wales, the percentage of people testing positive continued to increase in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 25,200 people in Wales had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 18,000 to 33,500), equating to around 1 in 120 people.
In Northern Ireland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 43,300 people in Northern Ireland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 33,600 to 53,900), equating to around 1 in 40 people.
In Scotland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 36,700 people in Scotland had COVID-19, (95% credible interval: 27,600 to 47,200) equating to around 1 in 140 people.
Latest memo to Surgeries from Government re booster jab received within the the last hour.
All over 50's to get booster jab no matter which vaccination they had before, aim to start mid September 2021. Surgeries have been instructed to book Saturday's and Sunday's through October to do the jabbing.
It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
She would have despised Rees-Mogg
Indeed. The DeLorean documentary on Netflix provides an interesting perspective on the early years of the Thatcher era.
Plenty of governments would have kept pumping money into DeLorean when Thatcher cut and run. The company collapsed of course, and taxpayers in England saved some money, but it was a huge blow to the community in Belfast. Would it have been better to let it go on, even at a loss? The government might have saved as much from the calming effect on the troubles as they were losing on their investment. Food for thought.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
The big error was not building more in their place, that has really caused big issues down the line.
Indeed, but Thatcher's goal was to get rid of social housing, not build more. Bribing the sitting tenants so they'd vote for you in gratitude was just a happy by-product of the privatisation process.
I think she viewed living in a council house in similar fashion to traveling by bus if you were over 30 - a sign of lack of drive.
Although the political benefit of the sell-off - more Tory voters - was obvious I'm sure it was secondary in her mind and she believed in the policy. But what I've always found interesting is how many on the Right take this as a given - that it wasn't partisan politics driving this policy of hers - and yet when it comes to Blair's immigration policy the very same people insist it was all about "rubbing the Right's face in diversity" and migrants voting Labour, nothing at all to do with the national economic interest.
I mean a former Blair aide is where that quote came from.
Yes, I know. And from such acorns mighty oaks do grow.
Mr. Urquhart, ironic use of the term 'black box' given it's also been used in behaviourism, which gives zero attention to theories of the mind and psychology and focuses entirely on what works.
It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
The likes of Rees Mogg did very well under Thatcher. They do under all PMs tbf but they did particularly well out of her tenure. And, as you say, so did some working class people in Essex. Being able to commute into Liverpool St station was the key qualification in the meritocracy she unleashed.
Amusing though your last sentence is, it is thoroughly wrong. The meritocracy she unleashed was a meritocracy where anyone, and I mean anyone, could think to start their own small business. That was certainly not the case in the time preceding her premiership. I can remember many people on the left sneering about small businesses at the time. The small business revolution was her lasting legacy. Her other legacy, the European Single Market was sadly trashed by the pigmies that now "lead" the Conservative Party.
“The Home Office has blamed a ‘technical glitch’ after callers to an emergency Afghanistan helpline were redirected to a washing machine repair company in Coventry.”
I was supposedly dealing with a washing machine repair company in Coventry last week. Is it possible I was actually put through to the Home Office team on Afghanistan?
To be fair they did come round on Monday and fix my dishwasher, so I think we can rule out the Home Office on the grounds of efficiency.
"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."
Telegraph
Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.
But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.
Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.
Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place
Well yes.
She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.
But she wasn't the sitting President.
The only times she has really impressed me is when she was cross examining witnesses in the Senate. You could see that she would have been a good and effective prosecutor. But, like all too many modern politicians, she is seriously short of ideas and incapable of articulating even the few that she has.
Buttigieg, in contrast, is almost too articulate and clearly buzzing with ideas. So many you wonder if he has clear priorities or appreciates the limitations of government. He will hopefully have his chance to shine if the infrastructure bill gets through.
Very few lawyers - even good ones - make good politicians. Different skills are needed. People often think that articulacy and being able ask questions (and be "forensic", without really understanding what that means and its limitations in most political theatre) - which lawyers are good at - are sufficient to be a good politician.
They aren't.
Starmer is an example. He may have been a good lawyer - though I suspect he was probably a bit more plodding than his supporters think - but he is an inexperienced and not very good politician. So far anyway.
Blair was outstanding as a politician - but he barely practised as a lawyer.
All the others - Bob Marshall-Andrews, Grieve etc were very good in their field ie as lawyers or as politicians opining on legal matters but much less successful when venturing away from that field.
The only exception I can think of was John Smith. Thatcher too - but while she trained as a lawyer, she never really practised - and she was I think a politician first and lawyer second. Her experience preaching in Methodist chapels was probably more relevant to her success as a politician than her legal training.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't terrible.
Thatch was a barrister..
I know. But as far as I know she qualified but didn't practise.
Dunno, but Wiki says Thatcher saw a law qualification as a necessary step for an aspiring politician. Ironic really since her degree & subsequent work in Chemistry has had a helluva lot more playback:
'She's a trained scientist u kno!'
The extraordinary thing about Thatcher is that she did all of this. Oxford degree (as a lower middle class grammar school girl), successful biochemist, THEN qualified lawyer, THEN became MP, Cabinet minister, and finally the most dominant prime minister since 1945
Just astounding. Even if you despise her, as a lefty Scot, you have to acknowledge her lifetime achievement. She has no equal in all British politics, I don’t think.
Sweet Jesus, I wish we could bring her back to life. And office
She was a quite extraordinary woman. She was also a very talented politician, both in the sense of running for office and governing effectively. We are unlikely to see her like again. I say all of this as someone who hated her whole mindset and think her overall influence on Britain has been negative. Brilliant but awful would be my concise appraisal.
Being in your 20s under the Thatcher government was just bliss. You just knew she had your back. I consider myself very privileged.
YES!
I felt the same. I was an ambitious lad, from a provincial comprehensive school, and I despised the class structures placed in my way, by people who were clearly stupider than me
Thatcher, my Prime Minister, seemed entirely on my side. "Have a go, work hard, and if you're good, you will do well, no matter where you're from". That was it.
I doubt she would have approved of my drug abuse and bohemian sex life (but who knows, she had an arty, boozy life of her own), but anyway, yes, she was my prime minister, I felt she opened doors for me and my friends and family, and I adored her, and voted for her every chance I got. She helped many poorer friends of mine buy their council houses and become home-owners, for the first time ever. They loved her too
God, I miss her. And I don't miss any other politician in all history. Just her
You can only sell cut price council houses once though. Now young people are left paying exorbitant private rents and can't afford to buy anything without help from mum and dad. Home ownership rates are well below their peak.
You can require another one to be built with the proceeds...
Which, of course, didn't happen!
Because the goal was to get rid of council houses not build more of them.
Absolutely.
Selling Council Houses was correct, not least because it mitigated monolithic estates. Non-replacement was no correct, though the correct way would be via funding of third parties to build replacements.
There are far too many conflicts of interest when Councils manage housing, and are also responsible for decisions about what is built.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
Indeed. As Mrs T is being much discussed this morning, her mantra of "Advisors advise, ministers decide" is changed by dithering Johnson to "Advisors advise, ministers say "er er er, not sure"
It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
She would have despised Rees-Mogg
I wonder who she would have rated out of the current/recent cabinets? Not JRM, for sure. Not Johnson for anything serious. Saj, probably. Hunt, I imagine. Bear in mind also that she did believe in richesse oblige at a personal level, even if she created an economy which allowed people to accumulate oodles of cash and not give much back to society. (See her remarks on the Good Samaritan.)
I think she would be spinning in her grave if she knew the terrible depth that the current "fuck business" Tory Party has descended to
Yes, but it does depend which one of her is down there, the small state, free market modernizer or the bombastic sentimental flag waver.
“The Home Office has blamed a ‘technical glitch’ after callers to an emergency Afghanistan helpline were redirected to a washing machine repair company in Coventry.”
I was supposedly dealing with a washing machine repair company in Coventry last week. Is it possible I was actually put through to the Home Office team on Afghanistan?
To be fair they did come round on Monday and fix my dishwasher, so I think we can rule out the Home Office on the grounds of efficiency.
It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
She would have despised Rees-Mogg
I wonder who she would have rated out of the current/recent cabinets? Not JRM, for sure. Not Johnson for anything serious. Saj, probably. Hunt, I imagine. Bear in mind also that she did believe in richesse oblige at a personal level, even if she created an economy which allowed people to accumulate oodles of cash and not give much back to society. (See her remarks on the Good Samaritan.)
I think she would be spinning in her grave if she knew the terrible depth that the current "fuck business" Tory Party has descended to
Yes, but it does depend which one of her is down there, the small state, free market modernizer or the bombastic sentimental flag waver.
I think she proved that it was perfectly possible to be both.
“The Home Office has blamed a ‘technical glitch’ after callers to an emergency Afghanistan helpline were redirected to a washing machine repair company in Coventry.”
Comments
These days you simply cannot read about stuff like strike votes by show of hands in car parks, with workers being intimidated by conveners or shop stewards with I know where you live, I know where your kids go to school etc.
Stories like these were legion in working class communities at the time. And that's another reason Thatcher was popular. She liberated working class people from their gatekeepers.
Either way a withdrawal after last year's deal was always going to be some sort of shitshow, and stuff like "should have kept Bagram open" is just quibbling.
Con 33.6%
Lib 33.4%
NDP 19.9%
BQ 5.3%
Grn 4.6%
PPC 3.1%
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
If you whisper his name he might get appointed back to a Cabinet seat!
Though I suspect she would have easily beaten Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn
She handed a stick to every bully in every school and pointed out the target.
Warning for those who dress Left: it's a tough watch.
https://twitter.com/Inafr_officiel/status/1430775768142028801?s=19
My one quibble is Bagram. Whoever had that idea should be sacked. It shoulda been the last place evacuated. A solid, defensible US airport 30 miles from Kabul, full of military kit. Why would you quit that FIRST? Insane
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
I know he did fight a Fife seat as a young adult, but not sure why he’s wearing that badge age 12. Dad pal of Malcolm Rifkind?
The Conservatives got 34.3% in 2019 and the Liberals 33.1% so that poll average in effect shows no change at all from last time.
Trudeau will fail to win the majority he wanted but the Liberals should still win most seats
Given the vast majority to be evacuated were/are in Kabul, it would essentially have been just another problem on top of the one they have. I don't think it would have made much difference.
The problem with all the other scenarios is that once you've decided to pull out, without a stable government in place, it's going to be a mess however you do it.
Section 28 was partly about that ossification. It was also about a war on Trendy Local Councils, because the Maggie of 1986 was beginning her detachment from reality and starting to see enemies to be brought down everywhere.
She was much more "bohemian" than is generally understood
Thee's also an issue that many fewer pharmacies than once upon a time are owner-managed, or owned by very small companies, and the managers allowed much less professional independence than I had when I was running one.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
So forensic Lawyer or casual Game Show Host? I'll take the Lawyer.
I seemed to remember when him and his brother first came on the scene they were being hyped as being rapid.
It is showing c 2 in 3 chance of Liberals most seats, so 3 to 1 does sound value.
'Woke indoctrination by left wing councils' was in fact providing educational materials to support gay kids and combat homophobia. Section 28 100% was weaponising homophobia, a disgusting and utterly wrong policy, and it was the 'left wing councils' who were on the right side of history.
Now if you want to exit Kabul based Civilians you have a massive long road to defend and secure.
The SPD has noticeably increased its attacks on the Greens and CDU on the FDP. https://newsrnd.com/news/2021-08-20-bundestag-election-campaign--cdu-attacks-fdp.BJxDr523eF.html
If the SPD do win however and the Union go into opposition I would expect the Union to move right
His defence has been that it was an accident, he didn't know he hit a person, thought he had hit a deer and he did search the area to see what had happened and found nothing.
This much i knew.
Today i learnt the victims glasses were found in his Ravnsborg's car!
https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/status/1430939308001832961?s=19
In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 756,900 people within the community population in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 710,100 to 806,200), equating to around 1 in 70 people.
In Wales, the percentage of people testing positive continued to increase in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 25,200 people in Wales had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 18,000 to 33,500), equating to around 1 in 120 people.
In Northern Ireland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 43,300 people in Northern Ireland had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 33,600 to 53,900), equating to around 1 in 40 people.
In Scotland, the percentage of people testing positive increased in the week ending 20 August 2021; we estimate that 36,700 people in Scotland had COVID-19, (95% credible interval: 27,600 to 47,200) equating to around 1 in 140 people.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/27august2021
Would I bet at 3/1 that a party with a 0.5% lead now and the trend in their favour will win by 2.5% on election day? Yes I would.
It is the highest number of case in a single day recorded since the beginning of the pandemic.
According to the latest Scottish Government figures, 6,835 new cases of Covid-19 have been recorded in the past 24 hours, the number is 1,910 more than Thursday’s cases.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19542391.coronavirus-scotland-cases-surge-6-800/?ref=twtrec
They had a long way to go, but the idea they declined under Thatcher is rather without foundation.
Having said that, they probably assumed the ANA would hold it longer than 5 weeks and that it would be available right until the last day.
If @Aiannucci had written this, it would be seen as far-fetched. https://www.thenational.scot/news/19535969.home-office-responds-complaints-emergency-afghanistan-helpline/
Although the political benefit of the sell-off - more Tory voters - was obvious I'm sure it was secondary in her mind and she believed in the policy. But what I've always found interesting is how many on the Right take this as a given - that it wasn't partisan politics driving this policy of hers - and yet when it comes to Blair's immigration policy the very same people insist it was all about "rubbing the Right's face in diversity" and migrants voting Labour, nothing at all to do with the national economic interest.
O'Toole is pro Brexit and has taken a firm line against statue toppling, whereas Trudeau has tried to say he has sympathy with protestors aims if not their methods
NI around 1 in 40 people
E around 1 in 70 people
W around 1 in 120 people
S around 1 in 140 people
So the "true" figure could be considerably higher than the midpoint.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19542391.coronavirus-scotland-cases-surge-6-800/?ref=twtrec
Positivity rate is still three times the WHO benchmark:
Of the new tests for Covid-19 carried out which reported results in the past 24 hours – 14.2% were positive, 2.7% more than those on Thursday.
A gushing press corps made Biden feel invincible
Ayaan Hirsi Ali"
https://unherd.com/2021/08/the-media-enabled-afghanistans-collapse/
All over 50's to get booster jab no matter which vaccination they had before, aim to start mid September 2021. Surgeries have been instructed to book Saturday's and Sunday's through October to do the jabbing.
Plenty of governments would have kept pumping money into DeLorean when Thatcher cut and run. The company collapsed of course, and taxpayers in England saved some money, but it was a huge blow to the community in Belfast. Would it have been better to let it go on, even at a loss? The government might have saved as much from the calming effect on the troubles as they were losing on their investment. Food for thought.
‘The JCVI is like a black box, nobody knows what’s going on in there.
‘One small organisation is hindering entire vaccination programme. We’re at risk of losing the gains we’ve made’
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1431160839608930304?s=20
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1431161175681781761?s=20
I can confirm that was already a pain to do and presumably it will only get worse. So thank you to those commenters that suggested that.
To be fair they did come round on Monday and fix my dishwasher, so I think we can rule out the Home Office on the grounds of efficiency.
Selling Council Houses was correct, not least because it mitigated monolithic estates. Non-replacement was no correct, though the correct way would be via funding of third parties to build replacements.
There are far too many conflicts of interest when Councils manage housing, and are also responsible for decisions about what is built.
Rahul out.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.