Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What ‘good’ will look like for the parties in this year’s May

2456

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,738
    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    @fitalass.. we've reached peak Nat? :D

    Oh no we haven't.
    Altogether: 'oh yes we have!' :smiley:

    More seriously I would expect peak Nat to be around 2018-19. After that there will be too many awkward domestic questions about their record in government and the beahviour of their members for them to rise much higher, and independence will either have been achieved or brushed off the table for good. This may therefore be their peak year in terms of electoral results.
    I doubt that , only way they will go backwards is if their is a miracle with Labour. Tories will never ever govern in Scotland so unless labour rise from the dead . So independence or not they will be in power a long time, they are very very popular and they have no competition. Labour will take 10-20 years to recover at best assuming they ever do.
    The Tories were a dominant - frequently the dominant - force in Scottish politics until the 1960s, when they suddenly collapsed and have never recovered. Labour seemed all powerful in Scotland a mere fifteen years ago, and just three years ago a majority of Scottish MPs were Labour.

    The SNP are riding high for now, but the past suggests that even a monopoly position in Scottish politics can disappear both quickly and unexpectedly.
    The Tories got a majority of seats in Scotland only once post war. But they didn't fully collapse until 87.
    Ok, I'll clarify somewhat. In the 1950s they were very strong in Scotland as they had been in the 1930s and to a lesser extent the 1920s, with a high of 55% of the vote in 1955. In the 1960s their support dipped markedly and plateaued for two decades until Thatcher's unpopularity caused them to slide further ending with the total wipeout of 1997.

    My key point is that in the mind 1950s there would have been nothing unreasonable in seeing Scotland as a straightforward Tory/Labour fight for the foreseeable future. By the late 1960s such an idea would be laughable. Much the same has happened to Scottish Labour in recent years. Although the SNP are doing very well now, their strong position is not God-given and they would do well to ponder those examples.

    Why there was a sudden drop between 1959 and 1964 I don't know. Any ideas? One guess, but I stress it's a guess, is that there were probably more Liberal candidates (there were 150 more candidates countrywide) which split the centre vote and allowed the left to dominate (unfortunately my reference books don't break down candidates by region). But if anyone knows more I'd be interested to have it explained.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited April 2017

    Point of pedantry.

    Thd Tories lost a majority of over 23,000 in the Christchurch by-election of 1993.

    Zac was defending a majority of 23k
    The Tories weren't.
    Plenty of Tories helped to do so.

    This debate is even more pointless than most. Some apparently see that the former Tory mp faced no Tory opposition and had active Tory party help as irrelevant because of the admittedly true fact that it didn't say Tory candidate on the ballot, others like me are aware that officially he was not a Tory candidate, and that probably had a small impact even though he got oodles of Tory backing, but prioritise in relevance that he was the Tory MP, and was backed by Tories.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    I venture to suggest you may run into some robust discourse on that statement.
    No doubt, but true nonetheless. We gone from driving the worlds response to the financial crisis to near pariah status, where about the only impact we have is to imply war on Spain. Hell, even this lots budgets unravel more quickly than they used to.
    Hahaha.

    Until and unless Labour stop talking Britain down they will never be trusted with power again.

    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.
    Remainers have much in common with Labour - fighting yesterday's fight with yesterday's men with little other than 'ooooh you lot are nasty and talk to nasty people'. Oh, and talking in terms like 'pariah status' is doing Britain down.

    And talking about Broken Britain and Third World Britain wasn't??? :-D


  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    The Kippering of the SCons continues apace.

    'Outrage as Moray Council hopeful says the poor “shouldn’t have kids”'

    https://tinyurl.com/k83pnxx

  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Ishmael_Z said:

    https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/853139514373656577

    And from the horses mouth:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

    FACT
    EU rules have weakened safety checks on doctors making patients less safe and have held back cancer research

    FACT
    The EU is taking more control of the NHS and forcing more privatisation

    FACT
    Labour MPs have warned that EU proposals could lead to the ‘demise of the publicly-funded National Health Service’

    Does that photograph stir memories of the countless hours you yourself put in manning the campaign phones, what with this all being so important to you and everything?
    That photo was a huge boost for Leave and incredibly damaging personally for Cameron even if Remain had won.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878

    Sean_F said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    I venture to suggest you may run into some robust discourse on that statement.
    No doubt, but true nonetheless. We gone from driving the worlds response to the financial crisis to near pariah status, where about the only impact we have is to imply war on Spain. Hell, even this lots budgets unravel more quickly than they used to.
    Hahaha.

    Until and unless Labour stop talking Britain down they will never be trusted with power again.
    I am blown away by your lots diplomatic successes and legislative competence.
    Things are a hell of a lot better now than when Gordon Brown ceased to be PM.
    The total incompetence of Corbyn's Labour does make May's government lokk good, but the reality is that there are problems brewing all across the board, and not just relating to Brexit.

    Yep - people will vote for mind-numbing mediocrity over toxic incompetence each and every time. But that does not make mind-numbing mediocrity a good news story.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Sean_F said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    stodge said:

    Mortimer said:


    Remainers have much in common with Labour - fighting yesterday's fight with yesterday's men with little other than 'ooooh you lot are nasty and talk to nasty people'. Oh, and talking in terms like 'pariah status' is doing Britain down.

    So a Labour Government can do no right and a Conservative Government can do no wrong would be your line ?

    I think many would take a more nuanced view and that entails criticism of the current Government which is perfectly reasonable in a democracy or is any criticism "talking the country down" ?

    No, but referring to the country in which all your voters live as having 'parish status' clearly is.
    Get a dictionary. To be a pariah is to be an outcast. Now we may have done it to ourself, we may have wanted it, but wrt the EU, a pariah is precisely what we are right now. Problem is, it casts a shadow beyond the EU and our partners are wary. No point denying it. We have to fix that . And the kind of rhetoric we had about Spain does not help.
    The UK is not an outcast. Outcasts are States that other countries don't wish to trade with, or have diplomatic relations with. They're States that people don't visit or emigrate to.

    It must be very hard to see your side out of power, and led by a fool, but you spoil your case with such exaggeration.
    Er. We cast ourselves out of the EU.

    People are unsure of us. Some don't want trade deals with us. I have colleagues who are reappraising whether they want to live here any more.

    It's not all sweetness and light.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    stodge said:

    <

    Zac was an independent. David was talking of Government and Opposition parties.

    Come on, Mark. That's pedantry and you know it.

    Why did the Conservatives refuse to stand a candidate in Richmond Park ?
    Because they would lose.

    As it is, the only people who see this as a Tory loss are ultra-partisan (to the point of being outright blinkered) Lib Dems. Exhibit A: Smithson.
    Yes, that's me to a t.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Labour is in the almost unprecedented position of being unable to go round talking down their prospects prior to the results!

    UKIP will be lucky not to be wiped out. Relatively few of their Cllrs appear to be mounting credible defences in the first place.

    Labour did a great expectations job last year, and seem to be doing so again. If they dont lose 300 and gorton, they'll shrug it off.
    But they probably will lose 300. They shouldn't lose Gorton. They might also lose some of the mayoralties they 'shouldn't'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    The Kippering of the SCons continues apace.

    'Outrage as Moray Council hopeful says the poor “shouldn’t have kids”'

    https://tinyurl.com/k83pnxx

    How Malthusian.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    The Kippering of the SCons continues apace.

    'Outrage as Moray Council hopeful says the poor “shouldn’t have kids”'

    https://tinyurl.com/k83pnxx

    Well, it's better than hoping Sturgeon is kidnapped i suppose.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Does anyone serve Scones with Kippers?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    kle4 said:

    The Kippering of the SCons continues apace.

    'Outrage as Moray Council hopeful says the poor “shouldn’t have kids”'

    https://tinyurl.com/k83pnxx

    How Malthusian.
    At least it's not Swiftian.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    I venture to suggest you may run into some robust discourse on that statement.
    No doubt, but true nonetheless. We gone from driving the worlds response to the financial crisis to near pariah status, where about the only impact we have is to imply war on Spain. Hell, even this lots budgets unravel more quickly than they used to.
    Hahaha.

    Until and unless Labour stop talking Britain down they will never be trusted with power again.
    I am blown away by your lots diplomatic successes and legislative competence.
    Things are a hell of a lot better now than when Gordon Brown ceased to be PM.
    The total incompetence of Corbyn's Labour does make May's government lokk good, but the reality is that there are problems brewing all across the board, and not just relating to Brexit.
    Something is going to blow in this country.Many people have not had a wage rise in 10 years.How long can you restrict the public sector to wage freezes or 1% rises ? All the talk is of Brexit but in the real world this economy is not working for many, at some point this will manifest it self.If there is no opposition and a government complacent because of that the anger will eventually go somewhere.Many on here are smug with the current situation be smug but social unrest might be the outcome.
    This is not true. We have many wage rises over the last ten years. You would be correct in saying that the loss of value from 2007 has yet to be regained, but it is wholly wrong to say then there's been no wage rises.

    Ps we have full employment, flat inflation and sustained economic growth.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    Jonathan said:

    Sean_F said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    stodge said:

    Mortimer said:


    Remainers have much in common with Labour - fighting yesterday's fight with yesterday's men with little other than 'ooooh you lot are nasty and talk to nasty people'. Oh, and talking in terms like 'pariah status' is doing Britain down.

    So a Labour Government can do no right and a Conservative Government can do no wrong would be your line ?

    I think many would take a more nuanced view and that entails criticism of the current Government which is perfectly reasonable in a democracy or is any criticism "talking the country down" ?

    No, but referring to the country in which all your voters live as having 'parish status' clearly is.
    Get a dictionary. To be a pariah is to be an outcast. Now we may have done it to ourself, we may have wanted it, but wrt the EU, a pariah is precisely what we are right now. Problem is, it casts a shadow beyond the EU and our partners are wary. No point denying it. We have to fix that . And the kind of rhetoric we had about Spain does not help.
    The UK is not an outcast. Outcasts are States that other countries don't wish to trade with, or have diplomatic relations with. They're States that people don't visit or emigrate to.

    It must be very hard to see your side out of power, and led by a fool, but you spoil your case with such exaggeration.
    Er. We cast ourselves out of the EU.

    People are unsure of us. Some don't want trade deals with us. I have colleagues who are reappraising whether they want to live here any more.

    It's not all sweetness and light.

    I think you are wrong about trade deals, It's not often countries get to dictate terms to a G8 economy. Plenty will seize the opportunity, as they have absolutely nothing to lose. If it comes with some Duterte-like cap-doffing, so much the better.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    Excellent post Mr Herdson, May 4th looks set to be a great night for popcorn and surprises.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Labour is in the almost unprecedented position of being unable to go round talking down their prospects prior to the results!

    UKIP will be lucky not to be wiped out. Relatively few of their Cllrs appear to be mounting credible defences in the first place.

    Labour did a great expectations job last year, and seem to be doing so again. If they dont lose 300 and gorton, they'll shrug it off.
    But they probably will lose 300. They shouldn't lose Gorton. They might also lose some of the mayoralties they 'shouldn't'.
    Losing 300 council seats on its own won't be enough I think. The MPs are playing possum, too afraid to take on the membership or quit, and am I to believe the membership will snap awake from the corbyn dream because of lost council seats, when Copeland didn't shake them? It's the triple whammy indeed - labour need losses across the board, that cannot be explained away.

    Which mayoralties would stun them if lost though? West Midlands the Tory is even mentioning the word Tory on sone leaflets apparently, labour can say it was more like losing to an Indy,a one off.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    The Kippering of the SCons continues apace.

    'Outrage as Moray Council hopeful says the poor “shouldn’t have kids”'

    https://tinyurl.com/k83pnxx

    Most shortsighted. Where will all the babies for Conservative culinary delights come from?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Morning all.

    Excellent post Mr Herdson, May 4th looks set to be a great night for popcorn and surprises.

    Regrettably my area isnt counting until the Friday. I hope that's an aberration and there's plenty to sink our teeth into on the night.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    kle4 said:

    Point of pedantry.

    Thd Tories lost a majority of over 23,000 in the Christchurch by-election of 1993.

    Zac was defending a majority of 23k
    The Tories weren't.
    Plenty of Tories helped to do so.

    This debate is even more pointless than most. Some apparently see that the former Tory mp faced no Tory opposition and had active Tory party help as irrelevant because of the admittedly true fact that it didn't say Tory candidate on the ballot, others like me are aware that officially he was not a Tory candidate, and that probably had a small impact even though he got oodles of Tory backing, but prioritise in relevance that he was the Tory MP, and was backed by Tories.
    Didn't have the ballot paper description and didn't have access to the party machine (especially its past data).

    Ultra partisan Lib Dems, of course, are keen to portray it as a Tory loss because they don't want what they see as a signature moment dismissed as the aberration it actually was.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Jonathan said:

    Does anyone serve Scones with Kippers?

    Like
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Alistair said:

    The Kippering of the SCons continues apace.

    'Outrage as Moray Council hopeful says the poor “shouldn’t have kids”'

    https://tinyurl.com/k83pnxx

    Well, it's better than hoping Sturgeon is kidnapped i suppose.
    I have learned something new today (not always the case).
    'Protestant banter groups' are a thing.

    'Tory candidate apologies after Bloody Sunday post on Facebook'

    https://tinyurl.com/mxxzz7e
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Interesting piece by David as usual. I lack any kind of overview, but Nottingham Labour is reasonably confident about our end of the county (we actually only hold Beeston South) and a city by-election in Sherwood that I've been helping in. The national polls are unarguably unpromising, though.

    I'm keping a watch on the German outlook, partly for interest and partly for punting. Merkel's outlook has taken a turn for the better recently, mainly for some odd reason at the expense of the Greens - presumably there's some complicated churn behind that. The AfD is languishing below their past peaks but not falling further, despite UKIP-style leadership trouble: I think that nationalist-oriented voters are sending a message rather than assessing fitness for government, so leadership quarrels and the like wash off their voters' backs.

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/dimap.htm

    Possibly this is conversely why Le Pen is weakening in the French polls, as people focus shift from "I'm gonna vote for someone who speaks my sorta language" to "hmm, who do I actually want as President?" (Although if they feel the answer to that is Melanchon, it doesn't exactly suggest a sober mood either.)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    stodge said:

    <

    Zac was an independent. David was talking of Government and Opposition parties.

    Come on, Mark. That's pedantry and you know it.

    Why did the Conservatives refuse to stand a candidate in Richmond Park ?
    Because they would lose.

    As it is, the only people who see this as a Tory loss are ultra-partisan (to the point of being outright blinkered) Lib Dems. Exhibit A: Smithson.
    It clearly was a Tory loss in that there was a Con MPbeforehand and a Lib Dem afterwards. But it's alsoa contest that should be filed under 'unusual circumstances. And in any case, Zac's majority was still smaller tha Kaufman's.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    Point of pedantry.

    Thd Tories lost a majority of over 23,000 in the Christchurch by-election of 1993.

    Zac was defending a majority of 23k
    The Tories weren't.
    Plenty of Tories helped to do so.

    This debate is even more pointless than most. Some apparently see that the former Tory mp faced no Tory opposition and had active Tory party help as irrelevant because of the admittedly true fact that it didn't say Tory candidate on the ballot, others like me are aware that officially he was not a Tory candidate, and that probably had a small impact even though he got oodles of Tory backing, but prioritise in relevance that he was the Tory MP, and was backed by Tories.
    Didn't have the ballot paper description and didn't have access to the party machine (especially its past data).

    Ultra partisan Lib Dems, of course, are keen to portray it as a Tory loss because they don't want what they see as a signature moment dismissed as the aberration it actually was.
    It wasn't as significant as they would like, in all probability, but frankly I am skeptical lack of access to the party machine was so significant a factor so as to not make it, by association, a terrible night for the Tories nevertheless. The non Toryness was paper thin as a disguise, and it was still a great achievement for the lds to overcome a Tory backed candidate. Not as applicable to other contests, to be sure, but it was still impressive.

    If it wasn't, we should have seen the easy zac win that was expected.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Looking at some paper headlines, if you have a 'on the brink of nuclear war' headline, shouldn't you really remove the stuff about Easter puzzles and the like? The dissonance makes me confused about how concerned I shoukd be.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741


    Because they would lose.

    As it is, the only people who see this as a Tory loss are ultra-partisan (to the point of being outright blinkered) Lib Dems. Exhibit A: Smithson.

    Well, well, an even bigger Conservative activist and partisan than Marquee Mark !!

    So by your logic parties shouldn't stand in elections in case they lose ? That presumably means there will be no Conservative candidate in East Ham at the next General Election.

    Richmond Park may have technically been LD Gain from Independent but (from the 2015 GE and in all reality) it was LD Gain from Con.

    All your pinhead dancing doesn't alter the fact. The Conservative Party didn't stand a candidate because they thought Goldsmith would be strong enough to hold off the LDs but he wasn't so as a desperate line of defence they now claim that since he wasn't a Conservative at all (apparently), it wasn't a loss.

    They also knew that IF they had done the proper thing and stood a candidate, the LDs would have won and their candidate would have been a bad third and all those Conservatives who went to work for Goldsmith would have been in contravention of their Party membership if they had actively worked for another candidate in an election where an official Conservative Party candidate was standing.

    Not standing a candidate was implicit support for Goldsmith - seeing Conservative MPs and activists work for Goldsmith was explicit support.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    kle4 said:

    Looking at some paper headlines, if you have a 'on the brink of nuclear war' headline, shouldn't you really remove the stuff about Easter puzzles and the like? The dissonance makes me confused about how concerned I shoukd be.

    Those front pages are dire.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    You have to be joking.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    I venture to suggest you may run into some robust discourse on that statement.
    No doubt, but true nonetheless. We gone from driving the worlds response to the financial crisis to near pariah status, where about the only impact we have is to imply war on Spain. Hell, even this lots budgets unravel more quickly than they used to.
    Hahaha.

    Until and unless Labour stop talking Britain down they will never be trusted with power again.
    I am blown away by your lots diplomatic successes and legislative competence.
    Top tip.

    Don't suggest the country in which everyone you need to vote for you lives is nearing pariah status.
    LOL - or tell us we are all racists
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/853139514373656577

    And from the horses mouth:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

    FACT
    EU rules have weakened safety checks on doctors making patients less safe and have held back cancer research

    FACT
    The EU is taking more control of the NHS and forcing more privatisation

    FACT
    Labour MPs have warned that EU proposals could lead to the ‘demise of the publicly-funded National Health Service’

    am I right in thinking that not only have Labour privatised more of the NHS than the Tories ever did, but that PFI is crucifying the NHS, another Brown blunder of epic proportions that we will be paying for over the next 20 yrs or so.
    Not to forget that Labour were going to CUT NHS funding whilst the tories ring fenced it.....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Floater said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    I venture to suggest you may run into some robust discourse on that statement.
    No doubt, but true nonetheless. We gone from driving the worlds response to the financial crisis to near pariah status, where about the only impact we have is to imply war on Spain. Hell, even this lots budgets unravel more quickly than they used to.
    Hahaha.

    Until and unless Labour stop talking Britain down they will never be trusted with power again.
    I am blown away by your lots diplomatic successes and legislative competence.
    Top tip.

    Don't suggest the country in which everyone you need to vote for you lives is nearing pariah status.
    LOL - or tell us we are all racists
    It's the new politics, like Hillary Clinton calling her opponents "Deplorables.".
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    You have to be joking.
    While I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan, the devolution settlement was only stable as long as Labour retained power. The United Kingdom will end in the next few years as a result of a Tory policies. Perhaps it had to happen, but it will be a period of major instability for the next few years.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    @fitalass.. we've reached peak Nat? :D

    Oh no we haven't.
    Be fair, peak Nat has been predicted by Yoon hacks yearly since 2007. Why should their wee fanboys know any better?
    One by one the Unionist hacks are finally waking up to reality - the Yoonstream ain't happy !
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Morning all. Another good article from David, certainly a lot to look forward to on May 4th - will be interesting to see what ends up as the biggest headline the following day. Luckily for Labour the councils voting this year are mainly rural and Conservative, so a huge bloodbath in England is unlikely. Scotland could be very different though, as could the mayoral races.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/853139514373656577

    And from the horses mouth:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

    FACT
    EU rules have weakened safety checks on doctors making patients less safe and have held back cancer research

    FACT
    The EU is taking more control of the NHS and forcing more privatisation

    FACT
    Labour MPs have warned that EU proposals could lead to the ‘demise of the publicly-funded National Health Service’

    am I right in thinking that not only have Labour privatised more of the NHS than the Tories ever did, but that PFI is crucifying the NHS, another Brown blunder of epic proportions that we will be paying for over the next 20 yrs or so.
    Not to forget that Labour were going to CUT NHS funding whilst the tories ring fenced it.....
    It seems that when Labour do try to reform* the NHS, PB Tories still are not happy. What chance a bipartisan policy?

    *reform (like modernise) is a weasel word that suggests improvement, while doing the opposite.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited April 2017
    Sean_F said:

    Floater said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    I venture to suggest you may run into some robust discourse on that statement.
    No doubt, but true nonetheless. We gone from driving the worlds response to the financial crisis to near pariah status, where about the only impact we have is to imply war on Spain. Hell, even this lots budgets unravel more quickly than they used to.
    Hahaha.

    Until and unless Labour stop talking Britain down they will never be trusted with power again.
    I am blown away by your lots diplomatic successes and legislative competence.
    Top tip.

    Don't suggest the country in which everyone you need to vote for you lives is nearing pariah status.
    LOL - or tell us we are all racists
    It's the new politics, like Hillary Clinton calling her opponents "Deplorables.".
    That one comment probably swung the US election more than any other single event of the campaign.

    You can call your opponent anything you like, but don't insult the voters!
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Sean_F said:

    Things are a hell of a lot better now than when Gordon Brown ceased to be PM.

    You are looking back with fondness on the years of the Coalition Government, Mr Fear. Things are getting seriously bad again under Mrs May`s Conservatives.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,738

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    You have to be joking.
    While I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan, the devolution settlement was only stable as long as Labour retained power. The United Kingdom will end in the next few years as a result of a Tory policies. Perhaps it had to happen, but it will be a period of major instability for the next few years.
    Which only goes to prove it was a bad settlement. A democratic system has to allow for a change of government and be strong enough to survive it.

    Had Labour done a proper job of all-round devolution there might have been less of a problem. Suggesting glorified parish councils as assemblies for small and artificial regions (which ironically was what Blair described the Scottish Parliament as) was never going to work. At the very least four regional parliaments for England outside London were needed, and as Morris Dancer will tell us, they would by no means have commanded universal approval.

    The whole thing is a mess.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Doethur, masterful understatement on my views of devolution there :p
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited April 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/853139514373656577

    And from the horses mouth:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

    FACT
    EU rules have weakened safety checks on doctors making patients less safe and have held back cancer research

    FACT
    The EU is taking more control of the NHS and forcing more privatisation

    FACT
    Labour MPs have warned that EU proposals could lead to the ‘demise of the publicly-funded National Health Service’

    Does that photograph stir memories of the countless hours you yourself put in manning the campaign phones, what with this all being so important to you and everything?

    And does it ever get more LOLtastic than Labour complaining about large-scale misrepresentations about the NHS during political campaigns?
    It would be interesting to know how many phone calls made, leaflets delivered and street stalls manned and houses canvassed for the Stronger In campaign came from William Glenn given the EU was so important to him? You may disagree with the likes of Richard Tyndall and Mortimer in their Leave views or TSE in his view that Brexit would be a disaster but at least they put the work in for their respective campaigns during the referendum without being simply armchair generals
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    Floater said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    I venture to suggest you may run into some robust discourse on that statement.
    No doubt, but true nonetheless. We gone from driving the worlds response to the financial crisis to near pariah status, where about the only impact we have is to imply war on Spain. Hell, even this lots budgets unravel more quickly than they used to.
    Hahaha.

    Until and unless Labour stop talking Britain down they will never be trusted with power again.
    I am blown away by your lots diplomatic successes and legislative competence.
    Top tip.

    Don't suggest the country in which everyone you need to vote for you lives is nearing pariah status.
    LOL - or tell us we are all racists
    It's the new politics, like Hillary Clinton calling her opponents "Deplorables.".
    That one comment probably swung the US election more than any other single event of the campaign.

    You can call your opponent anything you like, but don't insult the voters!
    Her campaign was a comedy of errors.

    1. Insult your opponent's voters.
    2. Maximise turnout among blue collar whites in swing States by demanding an amnesty for illegal immigrants, telling them that "the future is Hispanic".
    3. Don't bother campaigning in Iowa, Wisconsin, or Michigan. You don't need their votes, because a "Coalition of the Ascendant" will carry you to victory.
    4. Do campaign hard in Texas, which you have no hope of winning, and California, which is not remotely competitive.
    5. Maximise turnout among evangelicals, by promising to appoint left wing Justices to SCOTUS, and promising them Social Justice good and hard if you win.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046

    Alistair said:

    The Kippering of the SCons continues apace.

    'Outrage as Moray Council hopeful says the poor “shouldn’t have kids”'

    https://tinyurl.com/k83pnxx

    Well, it's better than hoping Sturgeon is kidnapped i suppose.
    I have learned something new today (not always the case).
    'Protestant banter groups' are a thing.

    'Tory candidate apologies after Bloody Sunday post on Facebook'

    https://tinyurl.com/mxxzz7e
    With the increased confidence among Scottish Tories - the Unionist brand in Scotland is finally starting to show it's true colours in public. The bizarre mix of Tory/Orange Lodge/Loyalist groups/Rangers - is something to behold. I think many SLAB and SLID supporters will become increasingly wary of being classified by the MSM as "Unionist" Parties.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    Floater said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    I venture to suggest you may run into some robust discourse on that statement.
    No doubt, but true nonetheless. We gone from driving the worlds response to the financial crisis to near pariah status, where about the only impact we have is to imply war on Spain. Hell, even this lots budgets unravel more quickly than they used to.
    Hahaha.

    Until and unless Labour stop talking Britain down they will never be trusted with power again.
    I am blown away by your lots diplomatic successes and legislative competence.
    Top tip.

    Don't suggest the country in which everyone you need to vote for you lives is nearing pariah status.
    LOL - or tell us we are all racists
    It's the new politics, like Hillary Clinton calling her opponents "Deplorables.".
    That one comment probably swung the US election more than any other single event of the campaign.

    You can call your opponent anything you like, but don't insult the voters!
    Hilary Clintons 'Basket of Deplorable' speech and a week later in Nevada her 'Alt Right' speech Market the point at which she stopped reaching out to people not already in her camp, and started insulting and deriding them to make her, her campaign and her supporters fell suprerea. which is not a good move while you are still in a close election.

    When she included Libertarians alongside Racists and Nationalists, she was not just wrong, she upset, and heart a lot of people had been open to the idea of voting for her. according to the poles about 10%-12% of US voters identify to some extent as Libertarian, in the end most who lean right libertarian voted for Trump, while those who lean Left Libertarian voted for Johnson. If she has not been quite as rude, and well wrong, it could have been so different.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    isam said:
    What about illiberal policies from those within the eu? It's not trumpian or putinesqe, but still.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    stodge said:


    Because they would lose.

    As it is, the only people who see this as a Tory loss are ultra-partisan (to the point of being outright blinkered) Lib Dems. Exhibit A: Smithson.

    Well, well, an even bigger Conservative activist and partisan than Marquee Mark !!
    Let me stop you there.

    I have never been an activist for any party and at the last general election I voted Lib Dem.

    I therefore didn't bother to read the rest of your comment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,738

    Mr. Doethur, masterful understatement on my views of devolution there :p

    Thank you, I took a lot of care over drafting that comment! :smiley:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/853139514373656577

    And from the horses mouth:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

    FACT
    EU rules have weakened safety checks on doctors making patients less safe and have held back cancer research

    FACT
    The EU is taking more control of the NHS and forcing more privatisation

    FACT
    Labour MPs have warned that EU proposals could lead to the ‘demise of the publicly-funded National Health Service’

    Does that photograph stir memories of the countless hours you yourself put in manning the campaign phones, what with this all being so important to you and everything?

    And does it ever get more LOLtastic than Labour complaining about large-scale misrepresentations about the NHS during political campaigns?
    It would be interesting to know how many phone calls made, leaflets delivered and street stalls manned and houses canvassed for the Stronger In campaign came from William Glenn given the EU was so important to him? You may disagree with the likes of Richard Tyndall and Mortimer in their Leave views or TSE in his view that Brexit would be a disaster but at least they put the work in for their respective campaigns during the referendum without being simply armchair generals
    You mean deign to speak to morons and racists to try to actually persuade them the eu was good, rather than act as though any organisation does not need to continually justify itself? Crazy.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited April 2017

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this country to trade more with the Philippines (and Brexit was a fairly big subject on my second visit) and a few cheap (free) words about Duterte to smooth the process helps our profile in the country. You didn't have any such problems when Osborne was wining and dining the Chinese a couple of years ago or when they got the full state visit treatment with Dave. China is a full on police state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    It's easy to sit in a comfortable, safe, low crime, low corruption, western country and feel smug about your values, experience has shown the people here that they dont get you very far. Duterte isnt everyone's cup of tea in the west, but I doubt he could care less, he has the support of over 80% of his population according to recent polls, and his economy is booming.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited April 2017
    ydoethur said:

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    You have to be joking.
    While I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan, the devolution settlement was only stable as long as Labour retained power. The United Kingdom will end in the next few years as a result of a Tory policies. Perhaps it had to happen, but it will be a period of major instability for the next few years.
    Which only goes to prove it was a bad settlement. A democratic system has to allow for a change of government and be strong enough to survive it.

    Had Labour done a proper job of all-round devolution there might have been less of a problem. Suggesting glorified parish councils as assemblies for small and artificial regions (which ironically was what Blair described the Scottish Parliament as) was never going to work. At the very least four regional parliaments for England outside London were needed, and as Morris Dancer will tell us, they would by no means have commanded universal approval.

    The whole thing is a mess.
    The other way for the settlement to remain stable would have been for the SNP to have been acceptable as part of a governing coalition in Westminster. There is fault on both sides here, but the Tory campaign showing Ed Miliband in Salmond's pocket demonstrated such hostility to Scottish interests that was shown to be not viable. Instead the Tory party became explicitly English Nationalist without proposing a better devolutionary settlement.

    Scotland could not accept rule by a government without any real Scottish participation. While SLAB hegemony continued, or even a significant SLD participation in a coalition, the Union could survive. The 2015 GE result packed the gunpowder, Brexit was just the spark.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    Fillon v Le Pen in R2 is getting very tight. That looks to be her only realistic shot:
    https://twitter.com/electograph/status/853173921377648640
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited April 2017
    ydoethur said:

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    You have to be joking.
    While I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan, the devolution settlement was only stable as long as Labour retained power. The United Kingdom will end in the next few years as a result of a Tory policies. Perhaps it had to happen, but it will be a period of major instability for the next few years.
    Which only goes to prove it was a bad settlement. A democratic system has to allow for a change of government and be strong enough to survive it.

    Had Labour done a proper job of all-round devolution there might have been less of a problem. Suggesting glorified parish councils as assemblies for small and artificial regions (which ironically was what Blair described the Scottish Parliament as) was never going to work. At the very least four regional parliaments for England outside London were needed, and as Morris Dancer will tell us, they would by no means have commanded universal approval.

    The whole thing is a mess.
    So in essence even your 'at the very least' option would have been a problem?

    Bottom line is Scotland & Scottish Labour (when it actualy had some significance) wanted devolution, it was clearly stated in the Labour manifesto, and the UK (a qualifier very important to some folk) voted for it in a landslide. It's to Tony Blair's credit that despite his doubts he kept his promise on this issue, unlike certain other parties.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this country to trade more with the Philippines (and Brexit was a fairly big subject on my second visit) and a few cheap (free) words about Duterte to smooth the process helps our profile in the country. You didn't have any such problems when Osborne was wining and dining the Chinese a couple of years ago or when they got the full state visit treatment with Dave. China is a full on police state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    It's easy to sit in a comfortable, safe, low crime, low corruption, western country and feel smug about your values, experience has show the people here that they dont get you very far. Duterte isnt everyone's cup of tea in the west, but I doubt he could care less, he has the support of over 80% of his population according to recent polls, and his economy is booming.
    And unlike China, who SO is so happy to kiss up to, he was elected in a free and fair election.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this country to trade more with the Philippines (and Brexit was a fairly big subject on my second visit) and a few cheap (free) words about Duterte to smooth the process helps our profile in the country. You didn't have any such problems when Osborne was wining and dining the Chinese a couple of years ago or when they got the full state visit treatment with Dave. China is a full on police state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    It's easy to sit in a comfortable, safe, low crime, low corruption, western country and feel smug about your values, experience has show the people here that they dont get you very far. Duterte isnt everyone's cup of tea in the west, but I doubt he could care less, he has the support of over 80% of his population according to recent polls, and his economy is booming.

    Yep - I am sure that is all correct. But I bet he likes hearing from British cabinet ministers that the UK shares his values.

  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    Fillon v Le Pen in R2 is getting very tight. That looks to be her only realistic shot:
    ttps://twitter.com/electograph/status/853173921377648640

    Melenchon is looking very strong there, surely the French are not going to vote for Corbyn's more extreme gallic half-brother ? France would be bankrupt and outside the EU within a year!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Yep - I am sure that is all correct. But I bet he likes hearing from British cabinet ministers that the UK shares his values.

    Democracy, family, achievement, opening up the economy for the poor. We share more values with Duterte than we do with Xi, yet you're extremely keen to hold out the hand to China.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Morning all,

    Rather glad to wake up this morning and find we have survived the night without a nuclear war in N.Korea.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Fillon v Le Pen in R2 is getting very tight. That looks to be her only realistic shot:
    ttps://twitter.com/electograph/status/853173921377648640

    Melenchon is looking very strong there, surely the French are not going to vote for Corbyn's more extreme gallic half-brother ? France would be bankrupt and outside the EU within a year!
    Stranger things have happened.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    ydoethur said:

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    You have to be joking.
    While I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan, the devolution settlement was only stable as long as Labour retained power. The United Kingdom will end in the next few years as a result of a Tory policies. Perhaps it had to happen, but it will be a period of major instability for the next few years.
    Which only goes to prove it was a bad settlement. A democratic system has to allow for a change of government and be strong enough to survive it.

    Had Labour done a proper job of all-round devolution there might have been less of a problem. Suggesting glorified parish councils as assemblies for small and artificial regions (which ironically was what Blair described the Scottish Parliament as) was never going to work. At the very least four regional parliaments for England outside London were needed, and as Morris Dancer will tell us, they would by no means have commanded universal approval.

    The whole thing is a mess.
    The other way for the settlement to remain stable would have been for the SNP to have been acceptable as part of a governing coalition in Westminster. There is fault on both sides here, but the Tory campaign showing Ed Miliband in Salmond's pocket demonstrated such hostility to Scottish interests that was shown to be not viable.
    No, it showed hostility to the SNP who still want to break up the country, disregarding the referendum result.

    Had the SNP accepted the referendum result and held to their promise to not revisit it for a generation, that poster campaign would have had no impact.

    The SNP is not Scotland.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    MaxPB said:

    And unlike China, who SO is so happy to kiss up to, he was elected in a free and fair election.

    Administrations that hold tens of thousands of political prisoners without trial and are cavalier about judicial executions have always been acceptable to our friends on the left ;)
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    isam said:
    Guy Verhofsadt is wrong (again) A United Europe means another large and divers nation that will over time only be able to define itself by want it is not, will in time, have leader rise to the top that unite there divers people picking fits with and picking on 'outsides' in the same way Putin and Trump do today.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    ydoethur said:

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    You have to be joking.
    While I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan, the devolution settlement was only stable as long as Labour retained power. The United Kingdom will end in the next few years as a result of a Tory policies. Perhaps it had to happen, but it will be a period of major instability for the next few years.
    Which only goes to prove it was a bad settlement. A democratic system has to allow for a change of government and be strong enough to survive it.

    Had Labour done a proper job of all-round devolution there might have been less of a problem. Suggesting glorified parish councils as assemblies for small and artificial regions (which ironically was what Blair described the Scottish Parliament as) was never going to work. At the very least four regional parliaments for England outside London were needed, and as Morris Dancer will tell us, they would by no means have commanded universal approval.

    The whole thing is a mess.

    Had all the Westminster political parties been less self-centred and more aware of developments away from English marginal we would not be where we are today. Calls for Scottish self-government long-preceded 1997. No-one did anything about them. Even as late as 2014 we probably could have got away with a magnanimous reaction to the No win in the referendum and the creation of a constitutional convention to look in detail at how to create a UK settlement fit for the 21st century. But instead Cameron chose to play a narrow party political game, gave the SNP an immediate kiss of life and set us on the course for where we are today.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/853139514373656577

    And from the horses mouth:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_health.html

    FACT
    EU rules have weakened safety checks on doctors making patients less safe and have held back cancer research

    FACT
    The EU is taking more control of the NHS and forcing more privatisation

    FACT
    Labour MPs have warned that EU proposals could lead to the ‘demise of the publicly-funded National Health Service’

    Does that photograph stir memories of the countless hours you yourself put in manning the campaign phones, what with this all being so important to you and everything?

    And does it ever get more LOLtastic than Labour complaining about large-scale misrepresentations about the NHS during political campaigns?
    It would be interesting to know how many phone calls made, leaflets delivered and street stalls manned and houses canvassed for the Stronger In campaign came from William Glenn given the EU was so important to him? You may disagree with the likes of Richard Tyndall and Mortimer in their Leave views or TSE in his view that Brexit would be a disaster but at least they put the work in for their respective campaigns during the referendum without being simply armchair generals
    You mean deign to speak to morons and racists to try to actually persuade them the eu was good, rather than act as though any organisation does not need to continually justify itself? Crazy.
    Seems so, better to mock the plebs than actually persuade them to a different view
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MaxPB said:

    Yep - I am sure that is all correct. But I bet he likes hearing from British cabinet ministers that the UK shares his values.

    Democracy, family, achievement, opening up the economy for the poor. We share more values with Duterte than we do with Xi, yet you're extremely keen to hold out the hand to China.
    I work with a number of Filipinos, mostly nurses, and of all the non-EU immigrants that we get they are amongst the most easily integrated. They speak excellent English, intermarry, go to church and raise their families.

    However, none speaks well of their government and Filipinos are amongst the immigrant population most keen to naturalise so they do not have to return, apart from holidays.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    MaxPB said:

    Yep - I am sure that is all correct. But I bet he likes hearing from British cabinet ministers that the UK shares his values.

    Democracy, family, achievement, opening up the economy for the poor. We share more values with Duterte than we do with Xi, yet you're extremely keen to hold out the hand to China.

    The idea that the Chinese economy has not opened up to the poor over the last 30 years is absurd, as is the notion that a country that does not have legal due process is a democracy. I have no problem in trading with either China or the Philippines.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    kle4 said:

    Looking at some paper headlines, if you have a 'on the brink of nuclear war' headline, shouldn't you really remove the stuff about Easter puzzles and the like? The dissonance makes me confused about how concerned I shoukd be.

    Could you ask Trump to hold off till I've had my Majorca holiday in Oct. Pity to spoil it ;)
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    ydoethur said:

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Good for Labour would be unprecedented defeats followed by the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn.

    Good for other parties would be unprecedented Labour defeats followed by continuation of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

    Only the former is good for the Country .
    The country is still paying for the tragedy of having allowed Gordon Brown into Downing Street. While having a strong opposition is important for the Country, as long as Bed Blocker stays in charge he's preventing a re-run of that for now at least.
    The Brown era was a golden era of calm, stability and competence compared to today
    You have to be joking.
    While I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan, the devolution settlement was only stable as long as Labour retained power. The United Kingdom will end in the next few years as a result of a Tory policies. Perhaps it had to happen, but it will be a period of major instability for the next few years.
    Which only goes to prove it was a bad settlement. A democratic system has to allow for a change of government and be strong enough to survive it.

    Had Labour done a proper job of all-round devolution there might have been less of a problem. Suggesting glorified parish councils as assemblies for small and artificial regions (which ironically was what Blair described the Scottish Parliament as) was never going to work. At the very least four regional parliaments for England outside London were needed, and as Morris Dancer will tell us, they would by no means have commanded universal approval.

    The whole thing is a mess.
    What was, and is, needed is an English parliament to handle the areas devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. If that parliament then devolves further, that's fine - but the biggest problem for the last 20 years has been the official denial that England exists.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Arguably Clinton campaign failed because it was data-driven, relying far too much on polling and appealing to different micro groups. iirc Bill was arguing that they needed a better core message and needed to get out into the rust belt. He was overruled by the data kids.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Fillon v Le Pen in R2 is getting very tight. That looks to be her only realistic shot:
    https://twitter.com/electograph/status/853173921377648640

    Not much difference between Macron's victory margin against Le Pen or Melenchon there but he has a bigger lead against Fillon than he does against either populist
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    It's easy to sit in a comfortable, safe, low crime, low corruption, western country and feel smug about your values, experience has show the people here that they dont get you very far. Duterte isnt everyone's cup of tea in the west, but I doubt he could care less, he has the support of over 80% of his population according to recent polls, and his economy is booming.
    And unlike China, who SO is so happy to kiss up to, he was elected in a free and fair election.

    Throwing silly and false accusations about me around really does not help you make your point. It just proves that you are a fascist. See, we can both do it ;-)

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    Yep - I am sure that is all correct. But I bet he likes hearing from British cabinet ministers that the UK shares his values.

    Democracy, family, achievement, opening up the economy for the poor. We share more values with Duterte than we do with Xi, yet you're extremely keen to hold out the hand to China.
    I work with a number of Filipinos, mostly nurses, and of all the non-EU immigrants that we get they are amongst the most easily integrated. They speak excellent English, intermarry, go to church and raise their families.

    However, none speaks well of their government and Filipinos are amongst the immigrant population most keen to naturalise so they do not have to return, apart from holidays.
    That's just like a few malcontents over here who think Modi is bad for India. Bleeding heart liberals who think it's easy to run a developing nation riven with poverty, corruption and crime who love to criticise but have no solutions.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878

    MaxPB said:

    And unlike China, who SO is so happy to kiss up to, he was elected in a free and fair election.

    Administrations that hold tens of thousands of political prisoners without trial and are cavalier about judicial executions have always been acceptable to our friends on the left ;)

    As the British right's love affairs with Pinochet and Franco so clearly demonstrate.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Yep - I am sure that is all correct. But I bet he likes hearing from British cabinet ministers that the UK shares his values.

    Democracy, family, achievement, opening up the economy for the poor. We share more values with Duterte than we do with Xi, yet you're extremely keen to hold out the hand to China.
    I work with a number of Filipinos, mostly nurses, and of all the non-EU immigrants that we get they are amongst the most easily integrated. They speak excellent English, intermarry, go to church and raise their families.

    However, none speaks well of their government and Filipinos are amongst the immigrant population most keen to naturalise so they do not have to return, apart from holidays.
    That's just like a few malcontents over here who think Modi is bad for India. Bleeding heart liberals who think it's easy to run a developing nation riven with poverty, corruption and crime who love to criticise but have no solutions.

    Isn't it awful when people disagree with you, Max?

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Fillon v Le Pen in R2 is getting very tight. That looks to be her only realistic shot:
    https://twitter.com/electograph/status/853173921377648640

    That graph suggests Macron to win the first round is becoming better value. It also looks as if Fillonites are possibly shifting to Macron even before the second round, in order to stop the populists.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    ' Welsh Labour gained 237 seats in 2007 '

    That was 2012:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_local_elections,_2012

    ' The prediction by Thrasher and Rallings of 50 losses in England seems reasonable to me '

    Labour gained 291 seats in 2013 - if the election resembles the opinion polls Labour is going to lose many more than 50 this year.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    It's easy to sit in a comfortable, safe, low crime, low corruption, western country and feel smug about your values, experience has show the people here that they dont get you very far. Duterte isnt everyone's cup of tea in the west, but I doubt he could care less, he has the support of over 80% of his population according to recent polls, and his economy is booming.
    And unlike China, who SO is so happy to kiss up to, he was elected in a free and fair election.

    Throwing silly and false accusations about me around really does not help you make your point. It just proves that you are a fascist. See, we can both do it ;-)

    Weren't you just lecturing us on how awful Brexit is because the Chinese are upset?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Yep - I am sure that is all correct. But I bet he likes hearing from British cabinet ministers that the UK shares his values.

    Democracy, family, achievement, opening up the economy for the poor. We share more values with Duterte than we do with Xi, yet you're extremely keen to hold out the hand to China.
    I work with a number of Filipinos, mostly nurses, and of all the non-EU immigrants that we get they are amongst the most easily integrated. They speak excellent English, intermarry, go to church and raise their families.

    However, none speaks well of their government and Filipinos are amongst the immigrant population most keen to naturalise so they do not have to return, apart from holidays.
    That's just like a few malcontents over here who think Modi is bad for India. Bleeding heart liberals who think it's easy to run a developing nation riven with poverty, corruption and crime who love to criticise but have no solutions.

    Isn't it awful when people disagree with you, Max?

    Absolutely, but unlike China I have no compulsion to lock them up for it!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited April 2017

    Arguably Clinton campaign failed because it was data-driven, relying far too much on polling and appealing to different micro groups. iirc Bill was arguing that they needed a better core message and needed to get out into the rust belt. He was overruled by the data kids.

    Hillary actually saw a swing towards her in parts of the West and East coasts like California and Massachusetts and Texas as some affluent and educated Romney voters switched to her and she got the Hispanic vote out but she was trounced in the survey, Midwest and most of the South as white blue-collar voters who did not vote in 2012 or even voted for Obama came out for Trump and some African Americans who voted for Obama stayed at home
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    It's easy to sit in a comfortable, safe, low crime, low corruption, western country and feel smug about your values, experience has show the people here that they dont get you very far. Duterte isnt everyone's cup of tea in the west, but I doubt he could care less, he has the support of over 80% of his population according to recent polls, and his economy is booming.
    And unlike China, who SO is so happy to kiss up to, he was elected in a free and fair election.

    Throwing silly and false accusations about me around really does not help you make your point. It just proves that you are a fascist. See, we can both do it ;-)

    Weren't you just lecturing us on how awful Brexit is because the Chinese are upset?

    Nope.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741


    Let me stop you there.

    I have never been an activist for any party and at the last general election I voted Lib Dem.

    I therefore didn't bother to read the rest of your comment.

    In which case, apologies for having seemingly offended you.

    If you'll forgive me, however, I'm genuinely curious. The tenor of your posts doesn't suggest someone who is well disposed toward the LDs now and suggests someone who finds the Conservatives under May much more to their liking.

    I'd be interested in your political "journey" since 2015 and whether you would support the LDs now. I suspect not but as someone who voted LEAVE last June, I'm happy to remain in the LD camp for now and there's certainly nothing in the offerings of May which would make me want to support the Conservatives.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited April 2017

    Nope.

    Something about Shenzen companies a few weeks ago while I was in Manila.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    MaxPB said:

    And unlike China, who SO is so happy to kiss up to, he was elected in a free and fair election.

    Administrations that hold tens of thousands of political prisoners without trial and are cavalier about judicial executions have always been acceptable to our friends on the left ;)

    As the British right's love affairs with Pinochet and Franco so clearly demonstrate.

    As long it is the poor people being shot or thrown from helicopters the right seem to find it acceptable.

    Just as Mrs May sees the Saudi bombing of starving Yemenis as not so much a warcrime as a sales opportunity.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    HYUFD said:

    Fillon v Le Pen in R2 is getting very tight. That looks to be her only realistic shot:
    https://twitter.com/electograph/status/853173921377648640

    Not much difference between Macron's victory margin against Le Pen or Melenchon there but he has a bigger lead against Fillon than he does against either populist

    Fillon has a strong core support, but beyond that looks like he will really struggle to pick up votes. That's why Le Pen probably has her best shot up against him.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    OT.

    £84 billion a year is generated by the creative industries. As the residents of Hartlipool and other Brexiteers spend all day watching Jeremy Kyle this wont be of concern to them but for those of us responsible for generating this huge contribution to the economy Brexit is seen as a catastrophy. Seriously.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/creative-industries-generate-84-billion-a-year-for-the-uk-economy-almost-10m-an-hour-a7124551.html
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this country to trade more with the Philippines (and Brexit was a fairly big subject on my second visit) and a few cheap (free) words about Duterte to smooth the process helps our profile in the country. You didn't have any such problems when Osborne was wining and dining the Chinese a couple of years ago or when they got the full state visit treatment with Dave. China is a full on police state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    Max worships mammon, he would sell his granny for more, it is the Tory way.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,878
    MaxPB said:

    Nope.

    Something about Shenzen companies a few weeks ago while I was in Manila.

    I was reporting their reactions to Brexit, not saying that Brexit is bad because the Chinese think it is an act of self-harm.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Roger said:

    OT.

    £84 billion a year is generated by the creative industries. As the residents of Hartlipool and other Brexiteers spend all day watching Jeremy Kyle this wont be of concern to them but for those of us responsible for generating this huge contribution to the economy Brexit is seen as a catastrophy. Seriously.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/creative-industries-generate-84-billion-a-year-for-the-uk-economy-almost-10m-an-hour-a7124551.html

    The low value of the £ is actually seeing more films being filmed in the UK at the moment
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,738
    edited April 2017

    So in essence even your 'at the very least' option would have been a problem?

    Bottom line is Scotland & Scottish Labour (when it actualy had some significance) wanted devolution, it was clearly stated in the Labour manifesto, and the UK (a qualifier very important to some folk) voted for it in a landslide. It's to Tony Blair's credit that despite his doubts he kept his promise on this issue, unlike certain other parties.

    You misunderstand. I am fully in favour of devolution. I am firmly against it being introduced on the back of a fag packet manner adopted by Blair (or for that matter in the 'vow' in 2014) without thinking through the consequences and allowing for them.

    In this case, devolution to Scotland was clearly needed, but it had to be accompanied by devolution on the same terms elsewhere plus a significant reduction of power at Westminster. Blair did the first not because of conviction but for partisan advantage, made a half-hearted commitment to the second that came to nothing in England outside London, and actually arrogated more power to himself rather than do the third thing.

    The result is that we are left with the more than faintly absurd situation where there are about six different systems of government running in one small country and everyone is et in tension as a result. Moreover as neither Scotland or Northern Ireland are set to leave the U.K. (notwithstanding the fantasies of certain obsessives) but are also understandably unwilling to give up what they have gained, this situation appears irresolvable.

    If you don't think that's a problem, I think you need to take the blinkers off. Why do you think there is almost as much support for Scottish independence in England as there is in Scotland? Hint: it's not out of magnanimity towards the Scots or admiration of their increasingly shrill demands for more power when they already have far more freedom from Westminster than any other part of the UK.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    HYUFD said:

    Arguably Clinton campaign failed because it was data-driven, relying far too much on polling and appealing to different micro groups. iirc Bill was arguing that they needed a better core message and needed to get out into the rust belt. He was overruled by the data kids.

    Hillary actually saw a swing towards her in parts of the West and East coasts like California and Massachusetts and Texas as some affluent and educated Romney voters switched to her and she got the Hispanic vote out but she was trounced in the survey, Midwest and most of the South as white blue-collar voters who did not vote in 2012 or even voted for Obama came out for Trump and some African Americans who voted for Obama stayed at home
    Yep, her data kids didn't pick up those blue-collar non-voters. Bill's inbuilt political radar could sense something was happening out there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    Fillon v Le Pen in R2 is getting very tight. That looks to be her only realistic shot:
    https://twitter.com/electograph/status/853173921377648640

    Not much difference between Macron's victory margin against Le Pen or Melenchon there but he has a bigger lead against Fillon than he does against either populist

    Fillon has a strong core support, but beyond that looks like he will really struggle to pick up votes. That's why Le Pen probably has her best shot up against him.

    Most likely but the most probable scenario is Macron v Le Pen still
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    Nope.

    Something about Shenzen companies a few weeks ago while I was in Manila.

    I was reporting their reactions to Brexit, not saying that Brexit is bad because the Chinese think it is an act of self-harm.

    I have no compulsion to look it up but I do remember being told that it was a reason why Brexit was bad for the UK, less investment from China or something like that.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited April 2017

    Arguably Clinton campaign failed because it was data-driven, relying far too much on polling and appealing to different micro groups. iirc Bill was arguing that they needed a better core message and needed to get out into the rust belt. He was overruled by the data kids.

    The Data said they had problems in the mid west rust belt yet they decided not to campaign there due to not wanting to appear weak. Not even the tiniest effort was expended there.

    They just done fucked up. They had all the info they needed, they had the resources, they saw the iceberg miles in advance and chose not to do anything about it.

    Bill didn't say they needed a better core message, he said they needed a message on target the Midwest, but the campaign staff thought they were playing 12Dimensional chess and just let Trump have a free reign there.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this country to trade more with the Philippines (and Brexit was a fairly big subject on my second visit) and a few cheap (free) words about Duterte to smooth the process helps our profile in the country. You didn't have any such problems when Osborne was wining and dining the Chinese a couple of years ago or when they got the full state visit treatment with Dave. China is a full on police state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    Max worships mammon, he would sell his granny for more, it is the Tory way.
    It's not about the money. We do it because we enjoy being evil.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    Arguably Clinton campaign failed because it was data-driven, relying far too much on polling and appealing to different micro groups. iirc Bill was arguing that they needed a better core message and needed to get out into the rust belt. He was overruled by the data kids.

    Hillary actually saw a swing towards her in parts of the West and East coasts like California and Massachusetts and Texas as some affluent and educated Romney voters switched to her and she got the Hispanic vote out but she was trounced in the survey, Midwest and most of the South as white blue-collar voters who did not vote in 2012 or even voted for Obama came out for Trump and some African Americans who voted for Obama stayed at home
    Yep, her data kids didn't pick up those blue-collar non-voters. Bill's inbuilt political radar could sense something was happening out there.
    Yes they made the same fatal mistake as the Remain campaign
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fillon v Le Pen in R2 is getting very tight. That looks to be her only realistic shot:
    https://twitter.com/electograph/status/853173921377648640

    Not much difference between Macron's victory margin against Le Pen or Melenchon there but he has a bigger lead against Fillon than he does against either populist

    Fillon has a strong core support, but beyond that looks like he will really struggle to pick up votes. That's why Le Pen probably has her best shot up against him.

    Most likely but the most probable scenario is Macron v Le Pen still
    Macron seems to have drifted out to over 2 since I last looked.
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 378
    You have to laugh at the strategic political ineptitude of May and her pretend-affable Scottish branch leader Ruth D.

    May kicked it off by claiming that a vote for the Tories in the local elections would be a vote against a second Indyref. Now all the Tory candidates emphasise this and say much less about local issues.

    Even with the usual compliant MSM, how convincing is it going to be when the SNP become the largest party in Glasgow and have the largest percentage of votes in Scotland overall?

    Sure the Tories will squeak about their near inevitable gains mostly due to pro Union former Labour voters switching to them, but they will be well beaten into second place in the popular vote by the pro-referendum SNP.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Sean_F said:

    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:


    The Tories used to talk about broken Britain and Britain being a Third World country when they were in opposition. It's what happens.

    Being critical of government policy and action is not the same as talking Britain down. Boris Johnson's absolute incapacity to represent the UK competently and effectively abroad is more damaging to this country's interests than anything an irrelevance from the Labour party can say. Likewise, when cabinet ministers like Liam Fox's assert that we share values with a murderous thug like the President of the Philippines that does more harm to perceptions of us abroad than anything written by a left-wing journalist in a UK newspaper.

    Having just been to the Philippines and then to Manila on business it quite clear that Duterte has the support of the people. Very much like Modi in India. We may find some of their policies distasteful but from speaking to people (in both countries) they are behind both their leaders and the policies.

    I want this country to trade more with the Philippines (and Brexit was a fairly big subject on my second visit) and a few cheap (free) words about Duterte to smooth the process helps our profile in the country. You didn't have any such problems when Osborne was wining and dining the Chinese a couple of years ago or when they got the full state visit treatment with Dave. China is a full on police state with no free elections, yet when we befriend a democratic nation suddenly it's terrible.

    Additionally most people out of the country don't give a shit what Liam Fox says or does, his comments are purely for the domestic audience of the country he is visiting. And I think we do have a lot to admire about Duterte, he was given the worst hand in all of SE Asia, now the Philippine economy is booming, there is hope for the millions of poor where under previous leaders there was absolutely fuck all.

    I am sure that Duterte does have the support of people in the Philippines. That does not mean we have to say we share his values. That we feel we have to in order to "smooth the process" shows exactly what kind of situation we find ourselves in. And, yes, that is noticed across the world.
    Max worships mammon, he would sell his granny for more, it is the Tory way.
    It's not about the money. We do it because we enjoy being evil.
    And eating babies. That's the best part about Tory events for me, the baby feast.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Topping up on Macron this morning, now he is out at 2.08
This discussion has been closed.