Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, cheers.

I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.

Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour's next leader speaks

https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/832558146006687744

Interesting observation.

https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/832559644287578112

LOL. Burgon exposed as Blairite scum running dog.

Burgon's blown it.

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

David_Evershed said:

Barnesian said:

Latest Ipsos MORI has LibDem creeping up to 13%.

Con 40%
Lab 29%
LD 13%
UKIP 9%
Grn 4%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3840/Theresa-Mays-honeymoon-continues-as-Jeremy-Corbyn-still-struggles-with-public-approval.aspx

Lib Dems only 13%

Lib Dems just 13%

Lib Dems creeping up to 13%

All value judgements.

A neutral report would say Lib Dems on 13%.

That's their highest poll score in about three years, isn't it? So, worthy of note.

Not only that, but 13-14% is the LibDem's typical midterm rating pre-coalition - the party mostly bumped along in the low to mid teens, picking up a little after any good news like a by-election win, and only when a GE campaign got underway rose into the high teens pipping 20% in a good year.

If the LibDems continue to rack up headline VIs of 13-15% we can pretty much conclude that the overhang from the coalition period is behind them.

Before 2015 the last time the Liberals polled as low as 13% at a general election was 1979 which just goes to show they are only recovering from a very low base

Barnesian said:

David_Evershed said:

Barnesian said:

Latest Ipsos MORI has LibDem creeping up to 13%.

Con 40%
Lab 29%
LD 13%
UKIP 9%
Grn 4%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3840/Theresa-Mays-honeymoon-continues-as-Jeremy-Corbyn-still-struggles-with-public-approval.aspx

Lib Dems only 13%

Lib Dems just 13%

Lib Dems creeping up to 13%

All value judgements.

A neutral report would say Lib Dems on 13%.

Not quite. LibDems on 13% doesn't show the increase. I chose "creeping up" to reflect the very slow progress. I could have written "powers to".

I know you are joshing but you're also making a serious point about editorialising which I agree with.

How about Lib Dems on 13% compared with 23% in 2005?

Or Lib Dems plummet to 13% after being on 23% in 2005?

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.

Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.

A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....

European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.

And yet, still they want to meet him.......

Of course - he is theoretically the most powerful man on earth.

rottenborough said:

tyson said:

weejonnie said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/davidgrossman/status/832541404056412160

This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.

I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.

What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...

Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.

He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.

The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....

Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.

This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.

Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.

Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.

A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....

A smart Prime Minister would have been less obsequious and would have kept a state visit up her sleeve. Clearly, any thoughts that the UK could build a strong relationship with Trump - one that might provide leverage in the Brexit negotiations - have been smashed to smithereens. European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.

Had Hillary won though you can be sure the EU would have been put first ahead of post Brexit UK

So what? As our PM recognises, a strong EU is vital to British interests. The US President, of course, wants to see the EU disappear.

rottenborough said:

tyson said:

weejonnie said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/davidgrossman/status/832541404056412160

This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.

I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.

What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...

Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.

He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.

The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....

Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.

This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.

The Right don't like him much, either.

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

tyson said:

weejonnie said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/davidgrossman/status/832541404056412160

This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.

I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.

What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...

Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.

He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.

The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....

Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.

This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.

The Right don't like him much, either.

Some do for many he was their mentor Gove Osborne Cameron to name just three.The unfinished revolution by Philip Gould was required reading .

SouthamObserver said:

rottenborough said:

tyson said:

weejonnie said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/davidgrossman/status/832541404056412160

This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.

I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.

What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...

Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.

He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.

The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....

Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.

This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.

Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.

Yep. They won as New Labour and said they would govern as New Labour. The Left think they will win as hard Labour. They won't.

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.

Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.

A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....

A smart Prime Minister would have been less obsequious and would have kept a state visit up her sleeve. Clearly, any thoughts that the UK could build a strong relationship with Trump - one that might provide leverage in the Brexit negotiations - have been smashed to smithereens. European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.

Had Hillary won though you can be sure the EU would have been put first ahead of post Brexit UK

So what? As our PM recognises, a strong EU is vital to British interests. The US President, of course, wants to see the EU disappear.

You conflate Europe and the EU. We need the nation states of Europe to be succeeding. The EU is a major risk to that.

Yorkcity said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

tyson said:

weejonnie said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/davidgrossman/status/832541404056412160

This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.

I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.

What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...

Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.

He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.

The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....

Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.

This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.

The Right don't like him much, either.

Some do for many he was their mentor Gove Osborne Cameron to name just three.The unfinished revolution by Philip Gould was required reading .

Still should be for Corbyn and co. Especially, iirc, the opening chapters were he describes the reality of knocking on doors in Middle England and trying to get votes for Labour.

FPTP means marginal seats. Marginal seats are decided by a few thousand swing voters. Such people will not vote for Corbyn and 1970s socialism.

It really is very simple.

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, cheers.

I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.

Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?

Isn't it Professor Nuttall?

The Conservatives are joining in too. I reckon they fancy second place. UKIP in 4th? quite possible...

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/832569126677839877

The Tories did a nice smooth editing job.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Blimey, Kraft-Heinz have launched a bid to take over Unilever. I didn't see that one coming, although Unilever's one of my largest holdings.

This does sound like top-of-the-market megadeal exuberance.

Surely a competitions commission issue?

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

David_Evershed said:

Barnesian said:

Latest Ipsos MORI has LibDem creeping up to 13%.

Con 40%
Lab 29%
LD 13%
UKIP 9%
Grn 4%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3840/Theresa-Mays-honeymoon-continues-as-Jeremy-Corbyn-still-struggles-with-public-approval.aspx

Lib Dems only 13%

Lib Dems just 13%

Lib Dems creeping up to 13%

All value judgements.

A neutral report would say Lib Dems on 13%.

That's their highest poll score in about three years, isn't it? So, worthy of note.

Not only that, but 13-14% is the LibDem's typical midterm rating pre-coalition - the party mostly bumped along in the low to mid teens, picking up a little after any good news like a by-election win, and only when a GE campaign got underway rose into the high teens pipping 20% in a good year.

If the LibDems continue to rack up headline VIs of 13-15% we can pretty much conclude that the overhang from the coalition period is behind them.

Before 2015 the last time the Liberals polled as low as 13% at a general election was 1979 which just goes to show they are only recovering from a very low base

I think IanB2 was saying that the mid term level was around 13% and increased as they got more coverage during the weeks before a GE.

I have a feeling someone is going to come 'third in a two horse race'......

Spot the difference:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-warns-paul-nuttall-he-must-win-stoke-by-election_uk_58a6e083e4b037d17d26cfdf?na27f1or&

Farage told Ukip activists: “Please physically do everything you can to help get Paul Nuttall elected as MP for Stoke Central.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-stoke-ukip-duffy_uk_58a34272e4b03df370daac5d

"Nigel Farage is refusing to do any more campaigning for Ukip in the Stoke Central by-election after falling out with the new leader’s closest advisor, Huff Post UK has learned."

A more realistic perspective, from Trump's choice to replace his national security adviser, on the 'finely tuned machine' that is the Trump administration...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/02/robert_harward_turned_down_trump_now_others_can_too.html
CNN quoted one of Harward’s friends saying that, in mulling over the decision, he was persuaded most of all by the sheer dysfunction of Trump’s presidency, describing the job he was offered as “a shit sandwich.”

New Labours and Blairs big mistake to was not to introduce PR in the 97 to 01 period. It would have been seen as a magnanimous policy by the public and after getting a 197 majority on 43% of the vote.

No. Blair's huge mistake was a trifle bigger than that. It was not firing the lunatic when he had the chance.

SouthamObserver said:

rottenborough said:

tyson said:

weejonnie said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/davidgrossman/status/832541404056412160

This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.

I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.

What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...

Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.

He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.

The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....

Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.

This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.

Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.

I think New Labour fundamentally changed the constitutional, social and cultural landscape of England during that period. What further changes would you have liked to see?

Nigelb said:

A more realistic perspective, from Trump's choice to replace his national security adviser, on the 'finely tuned machine' that is the Trump administration...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/02/robert_harward_turned_down_trump_now_others_can_too.html
CNN quoted one of Harward’s friends saying that, in mulling over the decision, he was persuaded most of all by the sheer dysfunction of Trump’s presidency, describing the job he was offered as “a shit sandwich.”

There's an interesting Foreign Policy Article about the Harward rejection, saying that he was told he couldn't appoint his own team. Apparently, Patreus has also demanded the right to make his own appointments.

Going back to boring old Stoke Central. Evening Sentinel reports over 2,500 new people have registered to vote since the by election was called, many students. . Presuming they do vote then Labour and the Lib Dems should be the main beneficiaries. It seems to be getting more and more difficult for UKIP, they are falling back in the local betting shops, Labour firm favourite again, but there is a police enquiry against them.
.

This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.



I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.

What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...

Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.

He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.

The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....


Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.

This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.



Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.



I think New Labour fundamentally changed the constitutional, social and cultural landscape of England during that period. What further changes would you have liked to see?

PR and House of Lords reform massive House building programme.

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Given current trends how long before Snell is a leadership candidate?

Well he would be the man who saw off UKIP in the 'Capital of Brexit'.

Quite and his twitter account is apparently a goldmine. Latest is that he slagged off Robbie Williams. The challenge of finding someone even worse than Corbyn is one the Labour party must take seriously.

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.

Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.

A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....

A smart Prime Minister would have been less obsequious and would have kept a state visit up her sleeve. Clearly, any thoughts that the UK could build a strong relationship with Trump - one that might provide leverage in the Brexit negotiations - have been smashed to smithereens. European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.

Had Hillary won though you can be sure the EU would have been put first ahead of post Brexit UK

So what? As our PM recognises, a strong EU is vital to British interests. The US President, of course, wants to see the EU disappear.

Not when we are negotiating withdrawal from it it is not

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

David_Evershed said:

Barnesian said:

Latest Ipsos MORI has LibDem creeping up to 13%.

Con 40%
Lab 29%
LD 13%
UKIP 9%
Grn 4%

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3840/Theresa-Mays-honeymoon-continues-as-Jeremy-Corbyn-still-struggles-with-public-approval.aspx

Lib Dems only 13%

Lib Dems just 13%

Lib Dems creeping up to 13%

All value judgements.

A neutral report would say Lib Dems on 13%.

That's their highest poll score in about three years, isn't it? So, worthy of note.

Not only that, but 13-14% is the LibDem's typical midterm rating pre-coalition - the party mostly bumped along in the low to mid teens, picking up a little after any good news like a by-election win, and only when a GE campaign got underway rose into the high teens pipping 20% in a good year.

If the LibDems continue to rack up headline VIs of 13-15% we can pretty much conclude that the overhang from the coalition period is behind them.

Before 2015 the last time the Liberals polled as low as 13% at a general election was 1979 which just goes to show they are only recovering from a very low base

I think IanB2 was saying that the mid term level was around 13% and increased as they got more coverage during the weeks before a GE.

Not always and certainly not from 1979 to 1983 or 2001 to 2005

new thread

This UKIP failure in Stoke seems to be in the same PB certainty bracket as

Ukip not winning Euros
Carswell not winning Clacton by E
Reckless losing Rochester By E
NOM at GE 15
"It's the economy, stupid' 'meaning Remain win the Ref
...and the first female POTUS!!