Actually it is ludicrous that he has all the publicity of his speech and change in direction, we have the energy crisis and the fuel crisis and labour go down 2%
I am being honest when I say I just do not understand it unless Corbyn has destroyed the labour brand like Ratner did his
It’s also worth remembering the Bank of England has purchased an additional £400bn+ of gilts since the start of the Covid pandemic, thereby meaning the government’s net issuance hasn’t been too different to normal.
That all ends from the end of this year. The government won’t get any further help financing its deficit. Worth bearing in mind when the budget comes along.
While its supposed to end at the end of this year, there's every chance it could be continued past then if required.
Don't forget additional rounds of QE following the financial crisis happened in 2012 and 2016 (from memory).
True, but more likely the opposite in practice.
There was a fairly damning House of Lords report into the use of QE referencing the common perception it has been used over Covid in part to finance the deficit. The Bank of England was not pleased with this and responded by setting out its plans to reduce existing QE stocks (I.e. quantitative tightening) by not reinvesting maturing gilt proceeds once rates reach 0.5%. It will consider actively selling once rates reach 1%.
I’d put the chances of further QE next year at pretty much zero.
While I can believe that further QE is unlikely, I find the idea of any QT at all utterly implausible.
It’ll happen eventually, but likely in a co-ordinated manner involving most of the West’s central banks acting in unison.
Does anyone really think that the actions of the BoE have been anything other than printing money to increase asset values, and pretending that your right hand pocket borrowing from/lending to your left hand pocket is an actual transaction?
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of Johnsons obsession with dressing in costume? Thatcher used to do it to a limited extent but nothing like Johnson. I can only think of Grayson Perry who comes close. Prince Charles in his younger days went through a phase but it didn't last. The danger is that where the leader goes others follow, Already Sunak's started. It might be acceptable for the Prime Minister to look like a clown but not the Chancellor
What are you even on about? Seriously, I cannot tell.
The Chinese will be next. They are absolutely brilliant at visual propaganda now. Some of their anti-Covid posters make the best western efforts look lame
They will move on to TV and movies and then pop music (like Korea), and take those from us, too
Our only "hope" is that demographic calamity overwhelms them first. And this must, genuinely, soon be a problem for the youthful music and media industries of Korea, Taiwan, HK. Fast shrinking talent pools
Not sure that is true. Japanese youth culture has maintained its influence despite their ageing demographics.
Partly it is people refusing to grow up, as we see with Boomers and Gen X here.
The decline, indeed exhaustion, of western popular music is not a good sign. It is, or was, something we were BRILLIANT at for so long, at the same time as we ruled the world: no coincidence
It denotes a civilisation approaching stagnancy and therefore irrelevance. Like the decline of visual art in France in the 1930s-40s, or in Italy heading for the end of the 18th century
Or Islam, in nearly all ways, after the loss of Andalusia
I don't buy this. Music has been getting better for the last 20 years. Maybe not 'pop' music, but in general. But the woke thing makes it possible that it will all slam in to reverse, hard to think of any decent woke music.
There was an interview with a russian dissident on Triggernometry last week, he pointed out that China have produced absolutely nothing in terms of decent pop music, hard to disagree with that.
Can you elaborate on the assertion that music has been getting better for the last 20 years?
I suppose it is all a bit subjective. As a former musician, I would say that every pre existing genre of pop music has been perfected over the past 10-20 years due to accessibility via the internet; everything is out there, it is all meritocratic; the best stuff makes headway and the crap is discarded; whereas previously it was subject to control by an the record industry.
I accept that something has been lost as part of this process; ie there are few pop albums of great cultural significance in the way there used to be. I get as nostalgic as everyone else for the old days. But I would say on balance that this is in acceptable price to pay.
Actually it is ludicrous that he has all the publicity of his speech and change in direction, we have the energy crisis and the fuel crisis and labour go down 2%
I am being honest when I say I just do not understand it unless Corbyn has destroyed the labour brand like Ratner did his
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of Johnsons obsession with dressing in costume? Thatcher used to do it to a limited extent but nothing like Johnson. I can only think of Grayson Perry who comes close. Prince Charles in his younger days went through a phase but it didn't last. The danger is that where the leader goes others follow, Already Sunak's started. It might be acceptable for the Prime Minister to look like a clown but not the Chancellor
What are you even on about? Seriously, I cannot tell.
I'm really not surprised.
I'm still none the wiser. Something to do with him putting on hardhats or lab coats for photo ops I presume, has he been doing it more lately?
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
As did Philip Lloyd Greame, later Cunliffe-Lister, 1st Earl of Swinton.
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
On topic (sort of) is this famous Brit's progression:
Dame Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor Hilton Wilding Todd Fisher Burton (Burton) Warner Fortensky Taylor
Or something like that . . or just Liz.
Personally, feel a bit sad that neither "Rooney" and "Jackson" made the list.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Update from Greece - it's sunny, warm and the food is great. Also the NHS COVID pass works to get into indoor venues so the UK and EU must have quietly come to a mutual recognition agreement. The only place that asked for additional ID was the late night bar and they were matching names on the photo ID to COVID passes for everyone.
Heading out to a beach town with my wife for tomorrow until Wednesday, booked into a 5* (an actual one, not a Greek 5*). They've got a six course modern Cretan prix fixe which we've managed to book into for Tuesday evening as well. Apparently it's the best place to eat on this part of the island.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of Johnsons obsession with dressing in costume? Thatcher used to do it to a limited extent but nothing like Johnson. I can only think of Grayson Perry who comes close. Prince Charles in his younger days went through a phase but it didn't last. The danger is that where the leader goes others follow, Already Sunak's started. It might be acceptable for the Prime Minister to look like a clown but not the Chancellor
What are you even on about? Seriously, I cannot tell.
I'm really not surprised.
I'm still none the wiser. Something to do with him putting on hardhats or lab coats for photo ops I presume, has he been doing it more lately?
One thing that's always surprises me is how many people don't use their eyes. I'm being serious not criticising.
But there are those who do and those who don't. It has nothing to do with politics.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Seattle Times ($) - ‘Bad cop’: Seattle’s Pramila Jayapal emerges as key power player in Biden negotiations
With trillions of dollars and potentially all of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda on the line, Democratic U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal stared down her own party’s leadership. She didn’t blink.
All day Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had said the House would vote that day on a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that represents a small portion of Biden’s agenda.
And all day, Jayapal had said that she, and most of the 96-member Congressional Progressive Caucus that she leads, would not vote for the infrastructure bill unless it was paired with the rest of Biden’s agenda — a vast $3.5 trillion package to raise taxes on the wealthy, make community college free, provide child care and paid family leave, expand Medicare and invest in programs to combat climate change.
Thursday evening, one of the few moderate Democrats skeptical of the bigger package told CNN he was “1,000 percent” certain the infrastructure bill would pass that night. Moments later, Jayapal said she was certain there would be no vote and if there was, it wouldn’t pass.
Jayapal was right. Realizing she didn’t have the votes, Pelosi never brought the bill up for a vote Thursday night.
Jayapal, the third-term congresswoman from West Seattle, has become one of the key negotiators as Democrats, with razor-thin majorities in the House and the Senate, try to pass the ambitious health care, child care, education and climate proposals that Biden ran on and are critical to the success of his presidency.
Biden’s agenda is split into those two bills and Jayapal, and the newly energized and organized progressive wing of the party, is trying to make sure that the smaller one doesn’t pass without the larger one. . . .
The Senate has passed the physical infrastructure package, boosting spending for roads, transit and broadband internet. It was negotiated, in part, by two centrist Democrats, Sen. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, of Arizona.
But Manchin and Sinema have balked at the larger bill. And, with Democrats having only a one-vote majority in the Senate, and no hopes of getting even a single Republican vote for the larger package, they can’t afford to lose either senator.
Meanwhile, Jayapal and her progressive caucus have used the infrastructure bill as leverage. Ultimately, they’ll support it, but they are refusing to vote for it until Manchin and Sinema (and the rest of the Senate) sign on to some form of the climate and social programs package. . . .
“Jayapal is providing a master class these last few weeks in how to wield power,” wrote Brian Fallon, director of the progressive group Demand Justice . . . .
“It allowed the Biden administration to sort of stand back,” he said. “They let Jayapal be the bad cop here, I think there’s sort of a wink-wink relationship in her making these demands. . . " . . . .
Manchin and Sinema are doing the right thing.
Remember Biden only won in 2020 by getting fiscally conservative independents who voted Libertarian party in 2016 rather than back Hillary to support him in 2020 to stop Trump.
The Libertarian vote fell from 3.28% in 2016 to just 1.18% in 2020 while Trump's vote actually rose from 46.09% in 2016 to 46.86% in 2020.
Without Biden winning over most of those Libertarian swing voters he would have not have got over 50% of the vote and he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia to Trump and the EC.
To win again in 2024 and prevent the GOP regaining Congress next year therefore the Democrats must reassure those fiscally conservative swing voters that they are not spending too much and will not raise their taxes
Seattle Times ($) - ‘Bad cop’: Seattle’s Pramila Jayapal emerges as key power player in Biden negotiations
With trillions of dollars and potentially all of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda on the line, Democratic U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal stared down her own party’s leadership. She didn’t blink.
All day Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had said the House would vote that day on a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that represents a small portion of Biden’s agenda.
And all day, Jayapal had said that she, and most of the 96-member Congressional Progressive Caucus that she leads, would not vote for the infrastructure bill unless it was paired with the rest of Biden’s agenda — a vast $3.5 trillion package to raise taxes on the wealthy, make community college free, provide child care and paid family leave, expand Medicare and invest in programs to combat climate change.
Thursday evening, one of the few moderate Democrats skeptical of the bigger package told CNN he was “1,000 percent” certain the infrastructure bill would pass that night. Moments later, Jayapal said she was certain there would be no vote and if there was, it wouldn’t pass.
Jayapal was right. Realizing she didn’t have the votes, Pelosi never brought the bill up for a vote Thursday night.
Jayapal, the third-term congresswoman from West Seattle, has become one of the key negotiators as Democrats, with razor-thin majorities in the House and the Senate, try to pass the ambitious health care, child care, education and climate proposals that Biden ran on and are critical to the success of his presidency.
Biden’s agenda is split into those two bills and Jayapal, and the newly energized and organized progressive wing of the party, is trying to make sure that the smaller one doesn’t pass without the larger one. . . .
The Senate has passed the physical infrastructure package, boosting spending for roads, transit and broadband internet. It was negotiated, in part, by two centrist Democrats, Sen. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, of Arizona.
But Manchin and Sinema have balked at the larger bill. And, with Democrats having only a one-vote majority in the Senate, and no hopes of getting even a single Republican vote for the larger package, they can’t afford to lose either senator.
Meanwhile, Jayapal and her progressive caucus have used the infrastructure bill as leverage. Ultimately, they’ll support it, but they are refusing to vote for it until Manchin and Sinema (and the rest of the Senate) sign on to some form of the climate and social programs package. . . .
“Jayapal is providing a master class these last few weeks in how to wield power,” wrote Brian Fallon, director of the progressive group Demand Justice . . . .
“It allowed the Biden administration to sort of stand back,” he said. “They let Jayapal be the bad cop here, I think there’s sort of a wink-wink relationship in her making these demands. . . " . . . .
Surely as soon as an element of social or climate package is attached to the infrastructure bill then
- either the infrastructure bill is dead (if the GOP opposes) - Or the larger deal is dead (if Manchin or Sinena think they have done their bit)
Might indeed seem to be the case. BUT somehow I'm pretty certain that you are wrong, and that a deal will indeed get done.
But stay tuned . . . and hold on to yer hat!
I’m sure a deal would be done… but the logical path is to pass them together with a toned down $3.5tn package
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of Johnsons obsession with dressing in costume? Thatcher used to do it to a limited extent but nothing like Johnson. I can only think of Grayson Perry who comes close. Prince Charles in his younger days went through a phase but it didn't last. The danger is that where the leader goes others follow, Already Sunak's started. It might be acceptable for the Prime Minister to look like a clown but not the Chancellor
What are you even on about? Seriously, I cannot tell.
I'm really not surprised.
I'm still none the wiser. Something to do with him putting on hardhats or lab coats for photo ops I presume, has he been doing it more lately?
One thing that's always surprises me is how many people don't use their eyes. I'm being serious not criticising.
But there are those who do and those who don't. It has nothing to do with politics.
I don't watch TV news, most of what I get is read online, so I don't pick up on visual stuff much. I'm just not sure what you think 'dressing in costume' indicates.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
So Boris could stay PM but he would need to persuade Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP to back the Tories again
Pointless even bothering to run those numbers
It isn't, that is the reality, even on Opinium tonight the Tories would lose their majority.
So yes I am pleased the Conservatives are still ahead but I am also less pleased we are heading for a hung parliament. We as Tories will also need to do far more to reassure the DUP and Unionists as without them we will not return to power unless Boris gets a big bounce from the Manchester conference this week
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
Burnham clearly deserves to be Labour leader - I'm sure all the current MPs will rally behind him. That's all they're about after all, keeping his throne warm. (Other brands of hallucinogens are available)
So Boris could stay PM but he would need to persuade Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP to back the Tories again
Pointless even bothering to run those numbers
It isn't, that is the reality, even on Opinium tonight the Tories would lose their majority.
So yes I am please the Conservatives are still ahead but I am also less please we are heading for a hung parliament. We will also need to do more to reassure the DUP and Unionists as without them we will not return to power
If you don’t understand the futility of running mid term polls through electoral calculus without factoring in recent events, the likelihood of those events being prominent at the GE, the historical trends of polls in the electoral cycle, the effect of the campaign, the debates, the leader ratings, and so on, I can only conclude you have no idea what you’re doing
Knock at the front door and it's a bloke claiming to be "Steve from IPSOS-MORI", saying they want to know how people get out and about in the village. Banged on for a minute or two, then offered me little some black device which he wanted me to take with me every time I left the house, so they could track how far I had gone!
Surely this is a try on?! I said I wasn't interested. What can it be other than a tracker to tell burglars the house is empty?
I reckon you should tell him nicely that you want to waste time at your own volition, PB say.
That reminds me that I have received hundreds of letters over the decades written in pseudo legal lingo that I will be visited at some point by a tv license inspector etc etc. If one ever comes I'll him/her that I've never owned a tele (though fixed quite a few) and am wasting both our times talking about it.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
Burnham clearly deserves to be Labour leader - I'm sure all the current MPs will rally behind him. That's all they're about after all, keeping his throne warm. (Other brands of hallucinogens are available)
Burnham is probably Labour's only chance of winning back the Red Wall and thus even winning most seats let alone a majority (the latter also requires Labour to win back most of its seats lost to the SNP in Scotland).
However as tonight's poll shows Starmer could still become PM even if the Tories still win most seats, if he gets a hung parliament and the SNP and LDs and other minor parties back him.
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
Burnham clearly deserves to be Labour leader - I'm sure all the current MPs will rally behind him. That's all they're about after all, keeping his throne warm. (Other brands of hallucinogens are available)
Burnham is probably Labour's only chance of winning back the Red Wall and thus even winning most seats let alone a majority (the latter also requires Labour to win back most of its seats lost to the SNP in Scotland).
However as tonight's poll shows Starmer could still become PM even if the Tories still win most seats, if he gets a hung parliament and the SNP and LDs and other minor parties back him.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Why? It's because of Corbyn that Labour has so few MPs.
So Boris could stay PM but he would need to persuade Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP to back the Tories again
Pointless even bothering to run those numbers
It isn't, that is the reality, even on Opinium tonight the Tories would lose their majority.
So yes I am pleased the Conservatives are still ahead but I am also less pleased we are heading for a hung parliament. We as Tories will also need to do far more to reassure the DUP and Unionists as without them we will not return to power unless Boris gets a big bounce from the Manchester conference this week
Some of your comments are so bizarre I really find it difficult to believe you understand politics at all
Suggesting that unless Boris gets a big bounce from the conference this week he will not retain a majority is such nonsense you do not do your credibility any favours
He could get a huge bounce this week and lose his majority, and not do so and retain his majority
The election is in 24 and you should type this and refer to it before you post anything
Has anyone ever seen BJO and Owen Jones in the same room Owen Jones @OwenJones84 · 36m The country is in a catastrophic mess, and we were promised that Keir Starmer attacking the left and delivering the conference speech of every centrist dad's dreams would boost support for Labour.
Owen Jones @OwenJones84 Genuinely though, how is this supposed to get better for Keir Starmer?
Even I expected a poll boost for Labour - however temporary - after conference because of increased visibility and the minor fact the country is running out of petrol.
Actually it is ludicrous that he has all the publicity of his speech and change in direction, we have the energy crisis and the fuel crisis and labour go down 2%
I am being honest when I say I just do not understand it unless Corbyn has destroyed the labour brand like Ratner did his
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
"main family" 😂
Pecking order is very important when it comes time to pass the port or something.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
It is 80 years since the Babi Yar massacre. Extraordinary to think there are still people alive who were contemporaries of some of the victims.
And the perpetrators.. (not sure if any of the perps themselves are still around)
They'd have to be maybe 95 or 96 at the least. But it's not impossible one or two are alive.
In a parallel, the Germans have now caught the 96 year old Office Secretary from Ravensbruck who went on the run from her residential home this week after failing to attend court.
former Nazi concentration camp secretary, 96, has been found after going "on the run" on the day her trial was due to start, a court said on Thursday.
Irmgard Furchner, who was between 18 and 19 years old at the time of the events and lives in a home for the elderly near Hamburg, was to be tried by a special youth court for "complicity in murder in more than 10,000 cases", according to the prosecution.
She is accused of participating in the murder of inmates in the Stutthof concentration camp in present-day Poland, where she worked as a typist and secretary to the camp commander, Paul Werner Hoppe, between June 1943 and April 1945.
But the president of the court in Itzehoe said on Thursday morning "the accused is on the run", adding an arrest warrant has been issued.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
No because its irrelevant and Corbyns 2017 performance will never be matched by SKS anyway but that irrelevant too.
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
So Boris could stay PM but he would need to persuade Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP to back the Tories again
Pointless even bothering to run those numbers
It isn't, that is the reality, even on Opinium tonight the Tories would lose their majority.
So yes I am pleased the Conservatives are still ahead but I am also less pleased we are heading for a hung parliament. We as Tories will also need to do far more to reassure the DUP and Unionists as without them we will not return to power unless Boris gets a big bounce from the Manchester conference this week
Some of your comments are so bizarre I really find it difficult to believe you understand politics at all
Suggesting that unless Boris gets a big bounce from the conference this week he will not retain a majority is such nonsense you do not do your credibility any favours
He could get a huge bounce this week and lose his majority, and not do so and retain his majority
The election is in 24 and you should type this and refer to it before you post anything
'A week is a long time in politics'
Why do you write this rubbish
I am sorry BigG but that is what that poll would see. 46 hardworking, decent Conservative MPs would lose their seats and the Conservative majority won in 2019 would be lost.
The Conservatives with Opinium tonight are now on 39% ie not only below what they got in 2019 but even below what May got in 2017.
There is far too much complacency from some Tories on here I am afraid, Starmer may be a million miles from a Labour majority, he is certainly not a million miles from replacing Boris as PM
Attention: Due to a distinct lack of bowing, deference, and general naming of babies after me, all future articles of mine will be advertised following the below model.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Yawn so you cant give a single reason to vote SKS
And you wish SKS well
The voters are not persuaded
In fact the more they see or hear from him the worse his polling gets
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
No because its irrelevant and Corbyns 2017 performance will never be matched by SKS anyway but that irrelevant too.
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
Well, yes, and it was. Or have you forgotten that? How come you’re obsessed with 2017 - still worse than Kinnock’s result in 1992 or Callaghan’s in 1979 - but have forgotten 2019, the Labour party’s worst election result since 1935?
Because you don’t want to remember.
And that is the problem Starmer faces. As long as there is a significant chunk of Labour that still thinks Corbyn’s leadership was anything other than the total train crash on policy, personnel and tone it transparently was, Labour is stuck.
So Boris could stay PM but he would need to persuade Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP to back the Tories again
Pointless even bothering to run those numbers
It isn't, that is the reality, even on Opinium tonight the Tories would lose their majority.
So yes I am pleased the Conservatives are still ahead but I am also less pleased we are heading for a hung parliament. We as Tories will also need to do far more to reassure the DUP and Unionists as without them we will not return to power unless Boris gets a big bounce from the Manchester conference this week
Some of your comments are so bizarre I really find it difficult to believe you understand politics at all
Suggesting that unless Boris gets a big bounce from the conference this week he will not retain a majority is such nonsense you do not do your credibility any favours
He could get a huge bounce this week and lose his majority, and not do so and retain his majority
The election is in 24 and you should type this and refer to it before you post anything
'A week is a long time in politics'
Why do you write this rubbish
I am sorry BigG but that is what that poll would see, 46 hardworking, decent Conservative MPs would lose their seats and the Conservative majority won in 2019 would be lost.
The Conservatives with Opinium tonight are now on 39% ie not only below what they got in 2019 but even below what May got in 2017.
There is far too much complacency from some Tories on here I am afraid, Starmer may be a million miles from a Labour majority, he is certainly not a million miles from replacing Boris as PM
You know what I am not a conservative member and if Boris loses in 2024 so be it and it will be the vote of the people
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
"main family" 😂
Sure. I’m from a junior branch of the senior line, but we aren’t a cadet family as we don’t have our own seat.
Attention: Due to a distinct lack of bowing, deference, and general naming of babies after me, all future articles of mine will be advertised following the below model.
We'd have more respect for you if you were a member of the main family.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Yawn so you cant give a single reason to vote SKS
And you wish SKS well
The voters are not persuaded
In fact the more they see or hear from him the worse his polling gets
New New Labour is a busted flush
And so are you. You represent the past. A vile and dangerous past we are moving on from. A relic of a discredited nineteenth century ideology dreamed up by a man who admitted his ideas didn’t ever work in the real world. A party I physically felt unable to vote for despite having voted for a party led by Ed Miliband.
The problem is you’re taking the Opposition with you out of spite and we’re left with this awful mob as a result.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
No because its irrelevant and Corbyns 2017 performance will never be matched by SKS anyway but that irrelevant too.
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
Maybe he'll surprise you in the same way Boris has.
Really, this is a bet on how well things will go for the UK over the next couple of years.
If, in 2023, things are going well and the problems have dissipated, the government will win.
If things are a bit rubbish, Westminster is constantly firefighting and we're fed up with more tax and somewhat shabbier public services, the opposition has a decent opportunity.
If things go seriously wrong, and interest rates rise enough to really hit house prices then Mrs Starmer can start discussing the soft furnishings in No 10 immediately.
And this has relatively little to do with the virtues and vices of the government- they are bobbing around on a choppy sea like everyone else. That's why "Take Back Control" is so potent a slogan- we fear powerlessness in a scary world. It's also why it's so dishonest- we are all more at the mercy of the fates than we want to admit.
Put like that 45:45:10 might be about right. Roughly equal chances of success and moderate failure from here, with a small risk of utter calamity.
Lady Starmer, shurely?
Haven’t had one of those in No. 10 in a few years. Not since Lady Douglas-Home in 1964, who apparently had more changes of name than any other once–married woman due to her husband continually changing his title.
Although in the course of 1 day my mother was called (in order):
- Darling - Mrs [my father’s first name] - Her first name - Mrs [her surname] - Ma’am - Your Honour [that was an error] - Your Worship - Mum - The Honorable Mrs [her name]
IF she'd somehow flown to the Deep South of the US at the end of the day (on a souped-up Concorde?) she could have added "Miss [first name]" to her list (Miss being pronouced "Miz").
My personal theory, is that American women (and others where similar conventions apply) generally like fact that they've traditionally changed their surnames upon marriage, while still retaining their original names, at least in some situations.
Sometimes my own Sainted Mother would use her first and middle names with my Daddy Dearest's surname. But sometimes she'd use her own original surname as her middle name, depending on context. Or just how the mood struck her.
Interesting that rise of feminism and consequent desire and fashion of many women to NOT be required to adopt their husbands' surnames, has actually expanded the options for all women in US. Including the rise of double-barreled surnames, which when I was a boy was the preserve of high-falutin' Brits.
Which leads me to my second theory: that MALES who were born or promoted into the Anglo-British nobility early on decided to get into the name-change (shape-shifting?) fun. Which led in time to the multitudinous names of the 14th Earl of Home.
Among other things, must be a great way of dodging creditors!
The other twist is marrying heiresses on the condition you take on their family name.
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
No because its irrelevant and Corbyns 2017 performance will never be matched by SKS anyway but that irrelevant too.
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
Maybe he'll surprise you in the same way Boris has.
What, by getting BJO’s support? That seems a little unlikely.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
No because its irrelevant and Corbyns 2017 performance will never be matched by SKS anyway but that irrelevant too.
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
It's because of Corbyn that Labour currently has so few MPs.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Major factor in Labs inability to win in 2024 is their bloody useless nonentity of a leader.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
Can you really conceive of Corbyn winning an election if he were leader again? Or even avoiding a humiliation?
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
No because its irrelevant and Corbyns 2017 performance will never be matched by SKS anyway but that irrelevant too.
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
It's because of Corbyn that Labour currently has so few MPs.
Attention: Due to a distinct lack of bowing, deference, and general naming of babies after me, all future articles of mine will be advertised following the below model.
Hilariously Neil went off on a twitter rant when people accused him of being a self aggrandising, vain old fool; apparently these were the Mail’s words that he just happen to reproduce (without quotation marks).
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
No because its irrelevant and Corbyns 2017 performance will never be matched by SKS anyway but that irrelevant too.
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
Maybe he'll surprise you in the same way Boris has.
What, by getting BJO’s support? That seems a little unlikely.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Yawn so you cant give a single reason to vote SKS
And you wish SKS well
The voters are not persuaded
In fact the more they see or hear from him the worse his polling gets
New New Labour is a busted flush
And so are you. You represent the past. A vile and dangerous past we are moving on from. A relic of a discredited nineteenth century ideology dreamed up by a man who admitted his ideas didn’t ever work in the real world. A party I physically felt unable to vote for despite having voted for a party led by Ed Miliband.
The problem is you’re taking the Opposition with you out of spite and we’re left with this awful mob as a result.
Voters like you, out of spite left us with this mob
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Major factor in Labs inability to win in 2024 is their bloody useless nonentity of a leader.
Corbyn was 12% behind in 2019, Starmer is 4% behind tonight
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Major factor in Labs inability to win in 2024 is their bloody useless nonentity of a leader.
It isn't just him, though. When people see a complete c--t being succeeded by a useless wanker, they tend to discern a pattern. In other words it isn't just him, it's also you.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
Can you really conceive of Corbyn winning an election if he were leader again? Or even avoiding a humiliation?
The party is a "financial basket case" because of the legal bills needed to clear up the mess the Corbyn Cult left.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
You don’t understand. Partly because I think you don’t want to understand. That would mean admitting that Corbyn was a self inflicted, self indulgent catastrophe whose leadership was responsible for making an unpopular party into a hated, despised and mocked one.*
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Yawn so you cant give a single reason to vote SKS
And you wish SKS well
The voters are not persuaded
In fact the more they see or hear from him the worse his polling gets
New New Labour is a busted flush
And so are you. You represent the past. A vile and dangerous past we are moving on from. A relic of a discredited nineteenth century ideology dreamed up by a man who admitted his ideas didn’t ever work in the real world. A party I physically felt unable to vote for despite having voted for a party led by Ed Miliband.
The problem is you’re taking the Opposition with you out of spite and we’re left with this awful mob as a result.
Voters like you, out of spite left us with this mob
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
Can you really conceive of Corbyn winning an election if he were leader again? Or even avoiding a humiliation?
No but I could under Andy Burnham
"yeah but Corbyn" answers are not going to get SKS elected either
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Because you haven’t the moral courage to hear them, so you refuse to.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
No because its irrelevant and Corbyns 2017 performance will never be matched by SKS anyway but that irrelevant too.
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
It's because of Corbyn that Labour currently has so few MPs.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Major factor in Labs inability to win in 2024 is their bloody useless nonentity of a leader.
Corbyn was 12% behind in 2019, Starmer is 4% behind tonight
22 months after the 2017 GE, ie where we are now, Corbyn was 9% ahead
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
Can you really conceive of Corbyn winning an election if he were leader again? Or even avoiding a humiliation?
No but I could under Andy Burnham
"yeah but Corbyn" answers are not going to get SKS elected either
Attention: Due to a distinct lack of bowing, deference, and general naming of babies after me, all future articles of mine will be advertised following the below model.
Hilariously Neil went off on a twitter rant when people accused him of being a self aggrandising, vain old fool; apparently these were the Mail’s words that he just happen to reproduce (without quotation marks).
I believe that, it certainly looks like a copy/paste job. But still, imho, pretty cringe. Tbh, pretty cringe for The Mail to have written them in the first place for anyone. There's PR, and then there's too far.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
Can you really conceive of Corbyn winning an election if he were leader again? Or even avoiding a humiliation?
No but I could under Andy Burnham
"yeah but Corbyn" answers are not going to get SKS elected either
Burnham is grossly overrated. To rate him at all is to overrate him
So Boris could stay PM but he would need to persuade Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP to back the Tories again
Mid-term poll after Labour's self-congratulatory conference and petrol pumps run dry - and still Labour is behind.
With new boundaries to come to make things worse.
The Tories will still be in power, without need of a coalition, after 2024. With good reason.
The new boundaries will not be as pro Tory as they would be under say Cameron as most of the net gains will be in London and the South East where Boris is relatively less popular than the RedWall
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
Can you really conceive of Corbyn winning an election if he were leader again? Or even avoiding a humiliation?
No but I could under Andy Burnham
"yeah but Corbyn" answers are not going to get SKS elected either
2019 defeat = yeah because of Corbyn.
2024 is the latest prize And 2019 was mainly down to desire for Brexit and Boris
SKS policy on BREXIT 2nd Referendum was a disaster on the doorstep
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
Can you really conceive of Corbyn winning an election if he were leader again? Or even avoiding a humiliation?
No but I could under Andy Burnham
"yeah but Corbyn" answers are not going to get SKS elected either
2019 defeat = yeah because of Corbyn.
2024 is the latest prize And 2019 was mainly down to desire for Brexit and Boris
SKS policy on BREXIT 2nd Referendum was a disaster on the doorstep
The Chinese will be next. They are absolutely brilliant at visual propaganda now. Some of their anti-Covid posters make the best western efforts look lame
They will move on to TV and movies and then pop music (like Korea), and take those from us, too
Our only "hope" is that demographic calamity overwhelms them first. And this must, genuinely, soon be a problem for the youthful music and media industries of Korea, Taiwan, HK. Fast shrinking talent pools
Not sure that is true. Japanese youth culture has maintained its influence despite their ageing demographics.
Partly it is people refusing to grow up, as we see with Boomers and Gen X here.
The decline, indeed exhaustion, of western popular music is not a good sign. It is, or was, something we were BRILLIANT at for so long, at the same time as we ruled the world: no coincidence
It denotes a civilisation approaching stagnancy and therefore irrelevance. Like the decline of visual art in France in the 1930s-40s, or in Italy heading for the end of the 18th century
Or Islam, in nearly all ways, after the loss of Andalusia
I don't buy this. Music has been getting better for the last 20 years. Maybe not 'pop' music, but in general. But the woke thing makes it possible that it will all slam in to reverse, hard to think of any decent woke music.
There was an interview with a russian dissident on Triggernometry last week, he pointed out that China have produced absolutely nothing in terms of decent pop music, hard to disagree with that.
Can you elaborate on the assertion that music has been getting better for the last 20 years?
... while he's at it he could elaborate on the further assertion that the 'woke thing' makes it possible that it will all slam in to reverse.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Major factor in Labs inability to win in 2024 is their bloody useless nonentity of a leader.
Corbyn was 12% behind in 2019, Starmer is 4% behind tonight
22 months after the 2017 GE, ie where we are now, Corbyn was 9% ahead
22 months after the 2017 GE was April 2019 when Labour were polling 33% under Corbyn with Opinium ie below the 35% they are polling with Starmer.
The only reason they were ahead was Farage's BXP was on 17% to 26% for May's Tories, as soon as Boris took over the BXP vote shifted back to the Tories again
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Major factor in Labs inability to win in 2024 is their bloody useless nonentity of a leader.
Corbyn was 12% behind in 2019, Starmer is 4% behind tonight
22 months after the 2017 GE, ie where we are now, Corbyn was 9% ahead
22 months after the 2017 GE was April 2019 when Labour were polling 33% under Corbyn with Opinium ie below the 35% they are polling with Starmer.
The only reason they were ahead was Farage's BXP was on 17% to 26% for May's Tories, as soon as Boris took over the BXP vote shifted back to the Tories again
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Major factor in Labs inability to win in 2024 is their bloody useless nonentity of a leader.
Corbyn was 12% behind in 2019, Starmer is 4% behind tonight
22 months after the 2017 GE, ie where we are now, Corbyn was 9% ahead
22 months after the 2017 GE was April 2019 when Labour were polling 33% under Corbyn with Opinium ie below the 35% they are polling with Starmer.
The only reason they were ahead was Farage's BXP was on 17% to 26% for May's Tories, as soon as Boris took over the BXP vote shifted back to the Tories again
They led 36-29 at this stage with Opinium
The last Opinium of April 2019 (21st-23rd) had Labour on 33% ie no different basically to the 32.1% Corbyn got in December 2019, May's Tories were on 26% and the BXP were on 17%.
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
Not even a dead cat that.
A dead cat has more personality/policies/charisma than SKS though TBF
Shame you didn’t elect a dead cat instead of Corbyn then. You might not be in this mess,
As I said answers including yeah but Corbyn are completely irrelevant
Except we cannot decide to just exclude major factors if we do not like them. Isn't that exactly the behaviour the government is being criticised for right now in trying to explain away various problems?
Major factor in Labs inability to win in 2024 is their bloody useless nonentity of a leader.
Corbyn was 12% behind in 2019, Starmer is 4% behind tonight
22 months after the 2017 GE, ie where we are now, Corbyn was 9% ahead
22 months after the 2017 GE was April 2019 when Labour were polling 33% under Corbyn with Opinium ie below the 35% they are polling with Starmer.
The only reason they were ahead was Farage's BXP was on 17% to 26% for May's Tories, as soon as Boris took over the BXP vote shifted back to the Tories again
Regarding the Conference bounce is it not a little odd to have one which appears to be -2 points. Could it be the commentariat have got it wrong again?
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Oddly, I’m watching Game of Thrones and Rob Stark has just got it.
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
"Made a good start" my arse.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
Can you really conceive of Corbyn winning an election if he were leader again? Or even avoiding a humiliation?
No but I could under Andy Burnham
"yeah but Corbyn" answers are not going to get SKS elected either
2019 defeat = yeah because of Corbyn.
2024 is the latest prize And 2019 was mainly down to desire for Brexit and Boris
SKS policy on BREXIT 2nd Referendum was a disaster on the doorstep
Corbyn was leader in 2019, so ultimately it was Corbyn's policy.
Comments
We have two branches of our family who did that and chose to became cadets of the main family
@bbclaurak and all the right wing journalists do there best to claim SKS is an asset
and the Tories' lead... goes up.
Get the useless nonentity out and Burnham a seat NOW
I accept that something has been lost as part of this process; ie there are few pop albums of great cultural significance in the way there used to be. I get as nostalgic as everyone else for the old days. But I would say on balance that this is in acceptable price to pay.
That old Mandleson magic is all washed up.
Dame Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor Hilton Wilding Todd Fisher Burton (Burton) Warner Fortensky Taylor
Or something like that . . or just Liz.
Personally, feel a bit sad that neither "Rooney" and "Jackson" made the list.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=35&LIB=8&Reform=2&Green=6&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23.6&SCOTLAB=19.2&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.3&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
So Boris could stay PM but he would need to persuade Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP to back the Tories again
Heading out to a beach town with my wife for tomorrow until Wednesday, booked into a 5* (an actual one, not a Greek 5*). They've got a six course modern Cretan prix fixe which we've managed to book into for Tuesday evening as well. Apparently it's the best place to eat on this part of the island.
But there are those who do and those who don't. It has nothing to do with politics.
Your man is a useless nonentity
Wake up
And any response featuring "yeah but Corbyn" is completely irrelevant
Get KotN a seat
Remember Biden only won in 2020 by getting fiscally conservative independents who voted Libertarian party in 2016 rather than back Hillary to support him in 2020 to stop Trump.
The Libertarian vote fell from 3.28% in 2016 to just 1.18% in 2020 while Trump's vote actually rose from 46.09% in 2016 to 46.86% in 2020.
Without Biden winning over most of those Libertarian swing voters he would have not have got over 50% of the vote and he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia to Trump and the EC.
To win again in 2024 and prevent the GOP regaining Congress next year therefore the Democrats must reassure those fiscally conservative swing voters that they are not spending too much and will not raise their taxes
To which Tywin Lannister has said, ‘Let the North remember what happens when they March against the south.’
I don’t think Burnham is so foolish. Starmer is not the problem. Labour is the problem. Burnham, if he wants to win (and if I’m honest I don’t think he’s up to being leader) needs to let Starmer sort matters out.
He’s made a good start. He’s got rid of Corbyn - and his supporters…
So yes I am pleased the Conservatives are still ahead but I am also less pleased we are heading for a hung parliament. We as Tories will also need to do far more to reassure the DUP and Unionists as without them we will not return to power unless Boris gets a big bounce from the Manchester conference this week
(Other brands of hallucinogens are available)
Just had a quite surreal experience
Knock at the front door and it's a bloke claiming to be "Steve from IPSOS-MORI", saying they want to know how people get out and about in the village. Banged on for a minute or two, then offered me little some black device which he wanted me to take with me every time I left the house, so they could track how far I had gone!
Surely this is a try on?! I said I wasn't interested. What can it be other than a tracker to tell burglars the house is empty?
I reckon you should tell him nicely that you want to waste time at your own volition, PB say.
That reminds me that I have received hundreds of letters over the decades written in pseudo legal lingo that I will be visited at some point by a tv license inspector etc etc. If one ever comes I'll him/her that I've never owned a tele (though fixed quite a few) and am wasting both our times talking about it.
He has lost 100's of seats in LE 2021 even compared to the aforesaid disaster
He lost Hartlepool that even the aforesaid held
His personal ratings have tanked consistently compared to a year ago
He has had 1 poll lead out of the last 70
He has turned the Party into a financial basket case on the verge of bankruptcy
He has made over one third of staff redundant
He has failed to hold the Govt to account for anything
He has broken every single promise from his leadership campaign
He has deliberately caused division with members and Unions
He is going down like a dockside whore
but yeah "good start"!!
However as tonight's poll shows Starmer could still become PM even if the Tories still win most seats, if he gets a hung parliament and the SNP and LDs and other minor parties back him.
Suggesting that unless Boris gets a big bounce from the conference this week he will not retain a majority is such nonsense you do not do your credibility any favours
He could get a huge bounce this week and lose his majority, and not do so and retain his majority
The election is in 24 and you should type this and refer to it before you post anything
'A week is a long time in politics'
Why do you write this rubbish
Owen Jones
@OwenJones84
· 36m
The country is in a catastrophic mess, and we were promised that Keir Starmer attacking the left and delivering the conference speech of every centrist dad's dreams would boost support for Labour.
Owen Jones
@OwenJones84
Genuinely though, how is this supposed to get better for Keir Starmer?
Even I expected a poll boost for Labour - however temporary - after conference because of increased visibility and the minor fact the country is running out of petrol.
Instead Labour are going backwards!
That’s the problem with Labour. Not Starmer. Labour.
Until it’s detoxified, it will keep going backwards.
Getting rid of Corbyn and his madder acolytes was an absolute prerquisite for that.
It’s not remotely sufficient but without it Labour was going the way of the Liberals under Asquith.
Can Starmer rescue it? I don’t know. He is at least doing all the right things. He’s upsetting all the right people.
*Don’t give me that bullshit about the grass roots. The adulation of a few hundred thousand pompous and not very bright people like Pidcock, Burgon, Sultana and Lavery doesn’t make up for millions who think you’re vile twats.
Large sections of Labour’s membership are sadly no longer big on moral courage.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16311673/keir-starmer-op-ed-pm-incompetent?utm_source=sharebar_app&utm_medium=sharebar_app&utm_campaign=sharebar_app_article
What would Boris do without you
former Nazi concentration camp secretary, 96, has been found after going "on the run" on the day her trial was due to start, a court said on Thursday.
Irmgard Furchner, who was between 18 and 19 years old at the time of the events and lives in a home for the elderly near Hamburg, was to be tried by a special youth court for "complicity in murder in more than 10,000 cases", according to the prosecution.
She is accused of participating in the murder of inmates in the Stutthof concentration camp in present-day Poland, where she worked as a typist and secretary to the camp commander, Paul Werner Hoppe, between June 1943 and April 1945.
But the president of the court in Itzehoe said on Thursday morning "the accused is on the run", adding an arrest warrant has been issued.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/30/former-nazi-concentration-camp-secretary-96-goes-on-trial
Labour needs positive reasons to vote for SKS
You cant think of any other than to claim it would have been worse under yeah but Corbyn
The Conservatives with Opinium tonight are now on 39% ie not only below what they got in 2019 but even below what May got in 2017.
There is far too much complacency from some Tories on here I am afraid, Starmer may be a million miles from a Labour majority, he is certainly not a million miles from replacing Boris as PM
However, you seem to enjoy throwing insults as Brexit hurts you to the core
A quarter (26%) of Leave voters think Brexit has gone worse than expected. https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1444383009323487238/photo/1
And you wish SKS well
The voters are not persuaded
In fact the more they see or hear from him the worse his polling gets
New New Labour is a busted flush
Because you don’t want to remember.
And that is the problem Starmer faces. As long as there is a significant chunk of Labour that still thinks Corbyn’s leadership was anything other than the total train crash on policy, personnel and tone it transparently was, Labour is stuck.
The problem is you’re taking the Opposition with you out of spite and we’re left with this awful mob as a result.
Everyone needs a hobby.
Good night.
Dont blame me I voted Labour
Voting against antisemitism is spiteful?
Golly.
"yeah but Corbyn" answers are not going to get SKS elected either
With new boundaries to come to make things worse.
The Tories will still be in power, without need of a coalition, after 2024. With good reason.
SKS policy on BREXIT 2nd Referendum was a disaster on the doorstep
Or are these evidence-free assertions?
The only reason they were ahead was Farage's BXP was on 17% to 26% for May's Tories, as soon as Boris took over the BXP vote shifted back to the Tories again
In the matter of SKS.
Even the inept William Hague got a poll lead in the middle of a petrol crisis. SKS can't even manage that.
@bigjohnowls is right. SKS is going to lose, and lose badly.
The last Opinium of April 2019 (21st-23rd) had Labour on 33% ie no different basically to the 32.1% Corbyn got in December 2019, May's Tories were on 26% and the BXP were on 17%.
Even the earlier Opinium had the Tories and BXP on 40% combined the ONLY reason Corbyn had a lead then was Farage was splitting the Tory vote under May, Boris completely reversed that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
I have had to resort to blocking Labour from spamming me.
Not sure why they think that their is the remotest possibility Ex Members are going to "chip in"
He does not know anything else