politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The January 29th 2019 amendments and the extension rumours
Comments
-
The Conservatives had become associated with incompetence and sleaze by 1997 and were reduced to advocating traffic cone hotlines and spam fritter contests as big ideas.Richard_Nabavi said:
Interesting point. I see what you are getting at, but on the other hand in 1992 there was the very recent memory of the poll tax, and in 1997 the economy was in a better state than in 1992. Overall, I'd say the big difference was on the opposition side.williamglenn said:
This implies that the Conservatives were equally electable in 1992 and 1997, which I don't think is true.Richard_Nabavi said:The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.0 -
Interesting development:
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/0 -
Is there even such a thing as a ‘typical Conservative voter’ ? Is there a ‘typical Labour voter’ ? Both groups are extremely broad churches of opinion and lifestyle.williamglenn said:
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.Sean_F said:0 -
A real-life double whammy.rottenborough said:
Purely anecdotal, but I knew 92 was lost to Labour on the morning of the vote, when two of my mate's wives (in different marginals and both classic swing voters) separately announced they were sticking with Tories because of the tax issue.Richard_Nabavi said:
Interesting point. I see what you are getting at, but on the other hand in 1992 there was the very recent memory of the poll tax, and in 1997 the economy was in a better state than in 1992. Overall, I'd say the big difference was on the opposition side.williamglenn said:
This implies that the Conservatives were equally electable in 1992 and 1997, which I don't think is true.Richard_Nabavi said:The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.0 -
Agreed. It's more a numerical observation than anything. I don't think it's credible that UKIP or an equivalent could overtake the Conservatives if they revoked Article 50._Anazina_ said:
Is there even such a thing as a ‘typical Conservative voter’ ? Is there a ‘typical Labour voter’ ? Both groups are extremely broad churches of opinion and lifestyle.williamglenn said:
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.Sean_F said:0 -
Of course. And the reason that the incompetence and sleaze image stuck was the absolutely superb negative campaigning by Labour, and especially by Alastair Campbell. It wasn't some spontaneous public revulsion which hadn't existed in 1992.another_richard said:The Conservatives had become associated with incompetence and sleaze by 1997 and were reduced to advocating traffic cone hotlines and spam fritter contests as big ideas.
0 -
Better off trying to explain to TM that keep bringing back the same thing is futile and much more productive to rename #CCU as TM's CUFrancisUrquhart said:
They are probably still trying to explain to Jezza that the Customs Union, is not the trade union of custom officers.Gallowgate said:
Don’t you mean Starmer’s customs union?bigjohnowls said:
Not a problem with #CCUFoxy said:
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.ralphmalph said:
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port?Ishmael_Z said:
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?Sean_F said:
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.0 -
Time to bid good night folks
Have a pleasant nights rest
0 -
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.Richard_Nabavi said:
The two points are related. The feeling amongst Labour activists that at long last, after nearly 20 years, they finally had a coherent and potentially winning offer to make to voters, was palpable. As you say, it didn't appear out of nowhere, Blair's team had systematically identified all of Labour's big weaknesses and had equally systematically addressed them.rottenborough said:
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.Richard_Nabavi said:The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.0 -
Normal people will say anything to get political doorknockers to leave their doorstep.Mortimer said:
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...tottenhamWC said:
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.williamglenn said:
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.Sean_F said:
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....0 -
Agreed. Even if Jezza's team don't agree with a single word Blair and Brown ever said, they could at least learn from the attention to detail and the sheer obsession with making it all work as best they could. Every policy was tested to near destruction against Tory potential attack lines.Richard_Nabavi said:
The two points are related. The feeling amongst Labour activists that at long last, after nearly 20 years, they finally had a coherent and potentially winning offer to make to voters, was palpable. As you say, it didn't appear out of nowhere, Blair's team had systematically identified all of Labour's big weaknesses and had equally systematically addressed them.rottenborough said:
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.Richard_Nabavi said:The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.
I get the distinct impression that, other than John McD, Jezza's lot just think they can wing it with a few platitudes about foodbanks, school fund cuts and railway timetables.0 -
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.notme2 said:They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
0 -
Yup. Competent.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, and with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.notme2 said:They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
0 -
While I have to an extent given up on expecting sanity from the present HMG, I can't help thinking that this is weird. As I said in my article, less than a week ago the Conservatives were voting against the Cooper amendment which would have forced an extension, but now they're considering doing it voluntarily. Shambles, utter shambles...Gardenwalker said:
0 -
Time for hand egg.....0
-
If you’ve done it a while, and you are canvassing with previous voting intention data you can pick up a change quite quickly. It’s not only whether they’ll support you, but whether they are motivated to make their way to the polling station._Anazina_ said:
Normal people will say anything to get political doorknockers to leave their doorstep.Mortimer said:
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...tottenhamWC said:
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.williamglenn said:
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.Sean_F said:
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....0 -
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1092150658000670721rottenborough said:Interesting development:
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/0 -
-
Competence in government. I remember that. Big in the 90's, wasn't it. Like Britpop and the Rachel cut. Oh where did those days go?...notme2 said:
Yup. Competent.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, and with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.notme2 said:They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
0 -
...and then won. Three times.notme2 said:
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.Richard_Nabavi said:
The two points are related. The feeling amongst Labour activists that at long last, after nearly 20 years, they finally had a coherent and potentially winning offer to make to voters, was palpable. As you say, it didn't appear out of nowhere, Blair's team had systematically identified all of Labour's big weaknesses and had equally systematically addressed them.rottenborough said:
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.Richard_Nabavi said:The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.
0 -
Who voted for candidates standing under the Tory party banner of Thatcher, Major, Hague, Howard and Cameron...Casino_Royale said:You're a Lib Dem.
0 -
But that can’t be right, didn’t Corbyn with his 30 gains smashi all previous records and gains since the Second World War?The_Taxman said:
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.stodge said:
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.dixiedean said:
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years.
However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out.
Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.0 -
Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1092150658000670721rottenborough said:Interesting development:
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/
0 -
Lost in a haze of ecstasy?viewcode said:
Competence in government. I remember that. Big in the 90's, wasn't it. Like Britpop and the Rachel cut. Oh where did those days go?...notme2 said:
Yup. Competent.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, and with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.notme2 said:They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
0 -
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...rottenborough said:Interesting development:
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/ 0 -
Gladys Knight still got a set on lungs on her.0
-
538 1-0 Racing post0
-
That would have been more 89-95. I was thinking more poppy and Spice Girls, with good suits and smiley teeth, not lardy Mancs in trackiesrottenborough said:
Lost in a haze of ecstasy?viewcode said:
Competence in government. I remember that. Big in the 90's, wasn't it. Like Britpop and the Rachel cut. Oh where did those days go?...notme2 said:
Yup. Competent.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, and with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.notme2 said:They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
0 -
Were that true, canvas returns would be a reliable indicator of election outcome.notme2 said:
If you’ve done it a while, and you are canvassing with previous voting intention data you can pick up a change quite quickly. It’s not only whether they’ll support you, but whether they are motivated to make their way to the polling station._Anazina_ said:
Normal people will say anything to get political doorknockers to leave their doorstep.Mortimer said:
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...tottenhamWC said:
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.williamglenn said:
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.Sean_F said:
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
They aren’t.0 -
Top marks. So why are UK customs going to let food rot this side of the channel if the supermarket shelves are empty?Foxy said:
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.ralphmalph said:
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port?Ishmael_Z said:
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?Sean_F said:
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.0 -
More seriously, Turning Point is also a highly respected charity in the UK dealing with addiction, mental health and homelessness.viewcode said:
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...rottenborough said:Interesting development:
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/
Not like right wing evangelicals from the US could be expected to know, care or be arsed to check.
I sense a copyright conflict.
Although, since they are reporting parody accounts for using their free speech rights, we may not have too much sympathy.0 -
0
-
https://twitter.com/uk_turning/status/1092073415249412098viewcode said:
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...rottenborough said:Interesting development:
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/0 -
You did? Well I am surprised.Scott_P said:
Who voted for candidates standing under the Tory party banner of Thatcher, Major, Hague, Howard and Cameron...Casino_Royale said:You're a Lib Dem.
0 -
Hmm. Is this true? Certainly at local elections level seems party workers have a pretty good idea of the result by the time the count starts in most cases._Anazina_ said:
Were that true, canvas returns would be a reliable indicator of election outcome.notme2 said:
If you’ve done it a while, and you are canvassing with previous voting intention data you can pick up a change quite quickly. It’s not only whether they’ll support you, but whether they are motivated to make their way to the polling station._Anazina_ said:
Normal people will say anything to get political doorknockers to leave their doorstep.Mortimer said:
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...tottenhamWC said:
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.williamglenn said:
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.Sean_F said:
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
They aren’t.0 -
I have never suggested that they would.ralphmalph said:
Top marks. So why are UK customs going to let food rot this side of the channel if the supermarket shelves are empty?Foxy said:
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.ralphmalph said:
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port?Ishmael_Z said:
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?Sean_F said:
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
I expect No Deal to go with a whimper rather than a bang.
Just a waystation in our general decline.0 -
Biggest increase in vote share since WW2notme2 said:
But that can’t be right, didn’t Corbyn with his 30 gains smashi all previous records and gains since the Second World War?The_Taxman said:
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.stodge said:
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.dixiedean said:
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years.
However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out.
Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.0 -
Jezza is omnipotent0
-
Proof that labour are completely screwedbigjohnowls said:Jezza is omnipotent
0 -
Is that why he needs reflected glory from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?bigjohnowls said:Jezza is omnipotent
0 -
An "unsuccessful vineyard"? Is this a tax dodge?Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/uk_turning/status/1092073415249412098viewcode said:
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...rottenborough said:Interesting development:
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/0 -
Usual scaremongering. Spain depends on food exports to uk, they aren’t going to see their farmers livelihoods destroyedralphmalph said:
Top marks. So why are UK customs going to let food rot this side of the channel if the supermarket shelves are empty?Foxy said:
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.ralphmalph said:
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port?Ishmael_Z said:
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?Sean_F said:
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.0 -
I believe that in 1992 Kinnock could have achieved a 2017 type result - denying the Tories an overall majority - had he not lost control of himself at Sheffield a week before Polling Day. I suspect that made the difference in terms of giving the Tories a 7.6% lead rather than in the range of 6% - 6.5%. Effectively that is likely to have cost Labour 10 - 15 seats.The_Taxman said:
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.stodge said:
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.dixiedean said:
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years.
However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out.
Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.0 -
I might be misremembering but my recollection is that the Cones Hotline idea was pre-1992?another_richard said:
The Conservatives had become associated with incompetence and sleaze by 1997 and were reduced to advocating traffic cone hotlines and spam fritter contests as big ideas.
0 -
Introduced June 1992, ended September 1995.Torby_Fennel said:
I might be misremembering but my recollection is that the Cones Hotline idea was pre-1992?another_richard said:
The Conservatives had become associated with incompetence and sleaze by 1997 and were reduced to advocating traffic cone hotlines and spam fritter contests as big ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cones_Hotline0 -
"Touching off a tour of early nominating states this week, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), told reporters he will make his decision about running in March, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/03/democratic-presidential-candidates-2020-11428950 -
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-11442790 -
Pete Buttigieg is now 2nd fav on BF for Dems. 7.2
Small market so far.
0 -
Night all.0
-
Is Elizabeth Warren the Jeb Bush of 2020?rottenborough said:“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.0 -
Fair enough.another_richard said:
Introduced June 1992, ended September 1995.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cones_Hotline 0 -
OT the Superbowl is over. I did not watch it so dyor if you care who won.0
-
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1091690330221670400viewcode said:
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...rottenborough said:Interesting development:
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/
With some support from the likes of Rees-Mogg, Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker as well I can see why the left might be worried...
https://twitter.com/bernardjenkin/status/1092015273949974528
https://twitter.com/TPointUK/status/1092112864343740419
https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1092044802303184901
0 -
No, and so what ?brendan16 said:
Is Elizabeth Warren the Jeb Bush of 2020?rottenborough said:“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
She’d proably win anyway.
0 -
And why would a government implement a new trading agreement system that its business community does not wantkjohnw said:
Usual scaremongering. Spain depends on food exports to uk, they aren’t going to see their farmers livelihoods destroyedralphmalph said:
Top marks. So why are UK customs going to let food rot this side of the channel if the supermarket shelves are empty?Foxy said:
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.ralphmalph said:
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port?Ishmael_Z said:
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?Sean_F said:
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
0 -
This thread is hopelessly confused and seems to boil down to “free things are good”.rottenborough said:0 -
That was perhaps the most boring sporting event I ever got up early to watch. The highlights package is going to be about three minutes long plus the half time entertainment, for an event that was four hours from start to finish.DecrepitJohnL said:OT the Superbowl is over. I did not watch it so dyor if you care who won.
Well done to 538’s great analysis that singer Gladys Knight would go long with the national anthem, she held that last note for several seconds to take it over two minutes.0 -
Is that what Diane Abbott told you?bigjohnowls said:Jezza is omnipotent
0 -
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying!
Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.0 -
I've just seen the front page of the Telegraph. Less than subliminal message.
#InLizWeTruss
0 -
Some perspective on Dyson’s decision to relocate to Singapore:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Southeast-Asia-bucks-trend-of-sinking-global-foreign-investment
The figures for foreign direct investment into Singapore are unreal.
And the idea that we might emulate them, the sheerest fantasy.0 -
"The Alternative Arrangements Working Group, with Leave and Remain MPs, will meet for the first time on Monday" (BBC)
So it's official. Tezzie is sending out search parties looking for unicorns.
Get an agreement with Labour, you Silly Goose.0 -
She won't, because in her mind the Tories are the only Patriotic Party.SandyRentool said:"The Alternative Arrangements Working Group, with Leave and Remain MPs, will meet for the first time on Monday" (BBC)
So it's official. Tezzie is sending out search parties looking for unicorns.
Get an agreement with Labour, you Silly Goose.0 -
So the party that has overseen this whole sorry mess is only now, 7 weeks before we crash out, making a public show of working together.SandyRentool said:"The Alternative Arrangements Working Group, with Leave and Remain MPs, will meet for the first time on Monday" (BBC)
So it's official. Tezzie is sending out search parties looking for unicorns.
Get an agreement with Labour, you Silly Goose.
What a shower.0 -
Bemusement and exasperation probably sum up the EU’s current attitude.OldKingCole said:Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying!
Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
0 -
Another reason the Jeb comparison is notably inappropriate:brendan16 said:
Is Elizabeth Warren the Jeb Bush of 2020?rottenborough said:“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/17/the-professor-jeffrey-toobin
Her energy level is just short of manic. (Once, during a campaign swing through a Dunkin’ Donuts, I offered to buy her a cup of coffee. She declined, saying, “I once had half a cup, twenty years ago, and I’m still working it off.”)...
0 -
Well, in fairness Jeremy Corbyn is running Labour at the moment, and there's never been a hostile totalitarian regime he didn't want to suck up to.OldKingCole said:
She won't, because in her mind the Tories are the only Patriotic Party.SandyRentool said:"The Alternative Arrangements Working Group, with Leave and Remain MPs, will meet for the first time on Monday" (BBC)
So it's official. Tezzie is sending out search parties looking for unicorns.
Get an agreement with Labour, you Silly Goose.0 -
That's always been true. One of the big problems of our relationship with the EU is we don't get their ambitions for ever closer union and they can't understand why we're opposed to it.Nigelb said:
Bemusement and exasperation probably sum up the EU’s current attitude.OldKingCole said:Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying!
Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.0 -
Brexit. Head in hands. Vows to do a better job of avoiding it this week.ydoethur said:
That's always been true. One of the big problems of our relationship with the EU is we don't get their ambitions for ever closer union and they can't understand why we're opposed to it.Nigelb said:
Bemusement and exasperation probably sum up the EU’s current attitude.OldKingCole said:Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying!
Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
0 -
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,brendan16 said:
Is Elizabeth Warren the Jeb Bush of 2020?rottenborough said:“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.0 -
It's just the British sense of humour. Two years reaching reaching a deal and then saying 'April Fool!'ydoethur said:
That's always been true. One of the big problems of our relationship with the EU is we don't get their ambitions for ever closer union and they can't understand why we're opposed to it.Nigelb said:
Bemusement and exasperation probably sum up the EU’s current attitude.OldKingCole said:Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying!
Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.0 -
An interesting bit of research:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/
Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.0 -
Sometimes, for all the talk of new politics, it’s old politics that comes to dominate, especially when it comes to the base of both parties in the US.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,brendan16 said:
Is Elizabeth Warren the Jeb Bush of 2020?rottenborough said:“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
It’s very good that the UK generally takes a nonpartisan view of moral issues, and allows free votes on such things when they are legislated for. It’s far better to come to an agreed consensus on these things over time, than it is to have hyperpartisan extremists on both sides screaming past each other.0 -
Translation:Nigelb said:An interesting bit of research:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/
Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
If you get shafted by the government, given the chance you'll tell them to Do One.0 -
I'm confident that if the ERG continue to block the deal around 40/50 Tory MPs will vote to block or delay Brexit . The stakes for No Deal are too high.0
-
Any chance the convention could be extended...Sandpit said:
Sometimes, for all the talk of new politics, it’s old politics that comes to dominate, especially when it comes to the base of both parties in the US.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,brendan16 said:
Is Elizabeth Warren the Jeb Bush of 2020?rottenborough said:“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
It’s very good that the UK generally takes a nonpartisan view of moral issues, and allows free votes on such things when they are legislated for. It’s far better to come to an agreed consensus on these things over time, than it is to have hyperpartisan extremists on both sides screaming past each other.
0 -
You’re talking about Trump’s base.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,brendan16 said:
Is Elizabeth Warren the Jeb Bush of 2020?rottenborough said:“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
It won’t be sufficient.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Two weeks today, F1 testing commences. Huzzah!0 -
Interesting solar technology:
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-02-inkjet-solar-panels-poised-revolutionise.html
Looks to be around a quarter of current costs ?0 -
No, it didn't - but you can expect this to become another meme that hard line remainers will run with. Trivial and very superficial discussion from another othewise fairly well-regarded university. Mind you I was fairly revolted by their links with the New Labour project.Nigelb said:An interesting bit of research:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/
Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.0 -
Some random bloke* on the radio banging on about how no deal would be very bad for the UK's auto industry.
What the hell does he know about it all?
*head of Unipart0 -
We start seeing cars unveiled next week, apparently there’s a few different takes on the new rules, and a few sponsorship changes should see a raft of new team colours too.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Two weeks today, F1 testing commences. Huzzah!0 -
You'll put your foot on top of theirs and shoot through them both.SandyRentool said:
Translation:Nigelb said:An interesting bit of research:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/
Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
If you get shafted by the government, given the chance you'll tell them to Do One.0 -
No, that is the point. It won't just be Trump's base. There will be a lot of Americans who would be fundamentally anti-Trump but will think that such a stance is just a step too far. They might not vote for Trump but it will probably swing them to sitting on the fence as opposed to voting Democrat.Nigelb said:
You’re talking about Trump’s base.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,brendan16 said:
Is Elizabeth Warren the Jeb Bush of 2020?rottenborough said:“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
It won’t be sufficient.
As has been flagged before with the US elections, turnout is key.0 -
Quite. Outside of local authorities there was little to no austerity, and in welfare payments there was cpi link for the first few years, when everyone else was getting pay freezes. Even working tax credits that has been ramped up under the last government far greater than originally intended were fully maintained.A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:
No, it didn't - but you can expect this to become another meme that hard line remainers will run with. Trivial and very superficial discussion from another othewise fairly well-regarded university. Mind you I was fairly revolted by their links with the New Labour project.Nigelb said:An interesting bit of research:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/
Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
We’ve only really seen a squeeze in welfare from about 2014 onwards. Pushing down the local housing allowances, the benefit cap so a family on benefits won’t be better off than the average household income, and the ‘bedroom tax’.
The Lha changes, and the benefit cap would have disproportionately hit those areas with high house prices, which would,not have been in leave areas.
In Cumbria the areas that voted the most to leave have probably not suffered disproportionately in any measurable way due to austerity.
The link is created by the removal of a lot of top up funds given to poorer councils around the country, many of these were in fact temporary.
This is an example:
http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2009-2109/DEP2009-2109.doc
So it is a correlation with those areas of the country that have not done particularly well, or just not as well as other more dynamic areas. Mostly a north south thing, but that hides some of the substantial economic gains of the northern cities like Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle.0 -
NEW THREAD0
-
They haven’t really been shafted though.SandyRentool said:
Translation:Nigelb said:An interesting bit of research:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/
Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
If you get shafted by the government, given the chance you'll tell them to Do One.0 -
If there's no deal now it will be because the EU refuse to compromise. The ERG already have.felix said:I'm confident that if the ERG continue to block the deal around 40/50 Tory MPs will vote to block or delay Brexit . The stakes for No Deal are too high.
0
