politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Thoughts from a Big Beast

Mysticrose said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Streeter said:

Johnson inspiring his fellow candidates. Read the thread, it gets worse.

https://twitter.com/jim_cornelius/status/1201793062957178881?s=21

Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room.

Just listen to yourself.

When this election is over, whether right or left win or a combination, the climate will still be a central issue and everyone needs to listen and change.

He's right though. The typical voter attending a climate change hustings will be tending Green.

Nothing a Tory candidate can or will say will change enough votes to make it worthwhile.

Foxy said:

moonshine said:

StuartDickson said:

Best prices - Number of LibDem MPs:

10-19 10/11
20-29 7/4
9 seats and under 10/1
30-39 10/1
40-49 25/1
50-59 40/1

ie. n/c

Hard to credit given the hype 3 months ago.

It does make you wonder what their fortunes would have been if rather than adopting shrill obstinacy on the question of Brexit the past 3 years, they had accepted the result. e EU but staying in the Single Market is the best economic course, is the path best placed to bind our Union and would be the best compromise for a country that desperately wants to come back together and move on. We'd get the benefits of leaving the common farming and fisheries policies, the ability to strike independent trade deals in the UK's interests and our annual payments to Brussels would fall sharply.

We will not enter coalition talks with any party that seeks to block the first referendum result or pursue a needless second referendum. But we will also make it our red-line in any potential coalition talks that the UK in entirety remains in the Single Market after Brexit."

Ally this with their fiscally dry spending and tax plans, as well as a firm refusal to countenance a second independence referendum, both of which have been drowned out in the noise.

And voila, they probably get a Cleggasm level of seats with strong recovery in SE England and Scotland and very possibly hold the balance of power.

Not viable. Something like 2/3 of the LD membership joined after the referendum as rejectionists. I expect a Tory majority of about 40 seats, and Brexit to happen. At that point the party will switch to advocating a Norway plus relationship, with a view to later re-entry. Not that I am convinced that the EU would want us back.

Brexit is a crock of shit that solves none of the problems of the left behind areas, but they will take some time to realise that. What does concern me more is the plans in the Tory manifesto for constitutional reform, significantly reducing restraint on the executive by judiciary and parliament. Thinking Tories should pause and consider how they would feel if Jezza had those powers. One day, one of his lieutenants will.

Yes, the rather bland and casual reference to reform the relationship between courts, government and parliament could be hiding some very suspect plans. That worry is not helped by the inclusion of that section obviously being a reaction to high profile court losses, and we know from statements at the time from senior politicians and party supporters that their reaction will be vindictive and punitive rather than evaluative.

Mysticrose said:

Just listen to yourself.

When this election is over, whether right or left win or a combination, the climate will still be a central issue and everyone needs to listen and change.

Challenging candidates with awkward questions is democracy (and activism) at its best.

Hysterical shrieking to drown out opponents in a public forum may provide the hard of thinking with a fleeting hit of dopamine but will alienate the 99.9% who aren't obsessing about the subject.

View the protesters getting pasted round the tube platform by commuters the other week as a case in point.

p.s. Latest model outputs are cold but not seismic. There's a difference. At the moment I'd say it's fine. Some snow midweek and more on Friday but nothing like what was showing 24 hours ago, which would have been highly problematic. There will be heavy snow in the Scottish highlands but I guess that's fairly normal.

I'm relieved. I had a particular concern that I picked up yesterday about Labour supporters which I'll explain next Thursday

Casino_Royale said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Streeter said:

Johnson inspiring his fellow candidates. Read the thread, it gets worse.

https://twitter.com/jim_cornelius/status/1201793062957178881?s=21

Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room. Environmentalism is riddled with far left extremism. Climate change is their canvas to redraw the world how they want it. A candidate could be single handedly be saving the planet, but hey would still boo him if he was a conservative.

XR are putting cause of climate change mitigation back every time they open their mouths.

I dont think they are. A lot of them are annoying and overblown, and that for some the environmental aspects are just part of a wider wish to reshape society politically is certainly true, but in just the past year there really does seem to have been a change in the way politicians and media talk about climate change, and that does seem down to XR types and their actions.

While the response will not please XR as nothing could, and a lot of the time talk is just talk, theres been so much I do think there will be some actual outcomes too. Doesnt make some of them any less irritating or seeking personal attention through histrionics though.

Do we get a You Gov MRP update this evening?

Cookie said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

ReggieCide said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

egg said:

rcs1000 said:

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?

What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...

We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.

your maths is off

2019 - 871 > 1000

Bullshit maths is a pretty common currency with some posters on here

i’m just surprise no one has questioned my choice of 871

We all just assumed it was some important family birthday.

I don’t think i’m related to Alfred 😆

You almost certainly are! I would expect that the chances of being white British and not being descended from Alfred must be so slim as to be effectively zero.

My roots are largely Norman though...

(actually we probably are but we have about a 12 year gap in our records so can’t prove it)

YBarddCwsc said:

On topic, Ken Clarke has simply been through the weathering and erosion processes of very old rocks, and has survived.

He is now officially a National Treasure, and people who never liked him and never voted for him have forgotten why.

The same happened to Tony Wedgwood Benn. The middle classes loathed and feared him when there was a real prospect of him gaining power and forcing change. Once that was no longer the case, he become a National Treasure, and the same people happily spent £50 a ticket to hear him reminisce fondly in theatres.

I expect the same thing will happen to Corby. Once he has been forced out of front line politics, the very people yelling anti-semitism at him will be penning thoughtful and regretful critiques about how the UK was not ready for the radicalism of our new National Treasure. Cyclefree will write a reflexive header for pb.com. There will be much talk of allotments and home-made jam (just like jazz and cigars for our Ken).

It is the fear of old age in all of us. We always feel sorry for the tiger who no longer roars, but moves awkwardly on arthritic legs.

A thoughtful post, though I’d happily lay money that Cyclefree would ever write a post in the future arguing Corbyn was a national treasure!

Nick raises a poor Broxtowe estate and I know that he will have done everything that he could as a Labour MP with a Labour government to help the people there.

The reality is that it wasn't enough - this is where the Corbyn project is correct in its assessment. All of these "Labour Heartlands" where Labour now appears to be as toxic a brand as Thatcher ever was. Pre Thatcher they were poor and proud, they had a solid manual job, they grafted, they got by. Then Thatcher demolished the industry their jobs were founded from. Then Major and later Blair evolved the area so that their solid graft job for life was replaced by a less solid warehouse or logistics job.

In short they've gone from being poor but proud to poor with an iPad and angry. Brexit offered them a simple analysis and a simple solution to their ills. It doesn't matter that its a pack of lies. It doesn't matter that they will all be materially poorer after Brexit. They want it. They were promised it. They believe in it. Because when their own side failed to materially change their situation they were willing to believe the other side offering them a cross party cross generational solution.

When I sat unhappy in the Labour Party I used to say that I couldn't see how these voters would go Labour to Conservative. Not *these* voters. Surely. And yet reportedly (*cough* angry sacked Labour regional office staffers) a MILLION Labour leavers have gone Tory. In places like Easington. I'm not predicting that the Tories will take Easignton. But reportedly its on a knife edge, and even for that to be true is a damning indictment of everything thats wrong with politics today. Ignore people. Marginalise people. Use people as voting fodder. Lie to people. Get surprised when people rebel.

Labour collapsed in Scotland. Absolutely demolished. Don't tell me it can't happen in England as well.

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.

One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.

That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.

Completely agree with this. We have swung from, “Is there anything that you want to add, Minister?” to a level of hyper aggression where letting your interviewee get a word in edge ways is regarded as a weakness. It would be useful to hear what politicians actually think when not being harranged so we have some idea of what they would actually do if we elect them. The media have not had a good campaign.

They give us what we actually want, unfortunately.

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

I dont think they are.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7546357/Fury-Extinction-Rebellion-deface-famous-White-Horse-monument.html

If you cut out the rest of what I said of course it's easy to refute! The suggestion was every time they open their mouths they damage their own cause, not that some of the time they do.

Well, that was one example. But I have to say I think it was an example that illustrated the point nicely. I do think they are wrecking their own cause, which is a shame as it’s a very important one.

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.

One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.

That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.

Completely agree with this. We have swung from, “Is there anything that you want to add, Minister?” to a level of hyper aggression where letting your interviewee get a word in edge ways is regarded as a weakness. It would be useful to hear what politicians actually think when not being harranged so we have some idea of what they would actually do if we elect them. The media have not had a good campaign.

They give us what we actually want, unfortunately.

Partisan supporters do. I found Corbyn being taken apart by Neil amusing, I can’t deny it. Was it informative though? I am not so sure.

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Streeter said:

Johnson inspiring his fellow candidates. Read the thread, it gets worse.

https://twitter.com/jim_cornelius/status/1201793062957178881?s=21

Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room. Environmentalism is riddled with far left extremism. Climate change is their canvas to redraw the world how they want it. A candidate could be single handedly be saving the planet, but hey would still boo him if he was a conservative.

XR are putting cause of climate change mitigation back every time they open their mouths.

I dont think they are. A lot of them are annoying and overblown, and that for some the environmental aspects are just part of a wider wish to reshape society politically is certainly true, but in just the past year there really does seem to have been a change in the way politicians and media talk about climate change, and that does seem down to XR types and their actions.

While the response will not please XR as nothing could, and a lot of the time talk is just talk, theres been so much I do think there will be some actual outcomes too. Doesnt make some of them any less irritating or seeking personal attention through histrionics though.

But, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

A lot of the XR lot are middle-class Johnny come latelys who’ve just wanted to jump on the bandwagon, and have ended up pissing everyone off.

I’d agree that Greta Thunberg had an impact (though she risks going slightly off the boil now as she politicises) and also the BBC, particularly David Attenborough.

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.

One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.

That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.

Completely agree with this. We have swung from, “Is there anything that you want to add, Minister?” to a level of hyper aggression where letting your interviewee get a word in edge ways is regarded as a weakness. It would be useful to hear what politicians actually think when not being harranged so we have some idea of what they would actually do if we elect them. The media have not had a good campaign.

Although that does presuppose the current crop of politicians think anything worth saying.

Well we’ll never know, will we. And after the evasions, the ducking and diving and obfuscation one of them will be our PM. What will he do then?

For me, Tommy, zis election is over.

Casino_Royale said:

For me, Tommy, zis election is over.

Postal vote?

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

I dont think they are.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7546357/Fury-Extinction-Rebellion-deface-famous-White-Horse-monument.html

If you cut out the rest of what I said of course it's easy to refute! The suggestion was every time they open their mouths they damage their own cause, not that some of the time they do.

Well, that was one example. But I have to say I think it was an example that illustrated the point nicely. I do think they are wrecking their own cause, which is a shame as it’s a very important one.

I think they have a danger of imploding as a movement if the passion and drive which has been harnessed effectively, even in disruptive protests, crosses lines to stupid stunts from attention seekers, and adopts religious style doctrine over evidence even when people and governments make genuine and serious efforts to address issues.

I think a lot of people worry and feel guilty about the environment and give leeway to those badgering them about it. But that can turn quickly if the badgering never let's up and even increases even when actions are taken.

Edit: A quick way to make a grateful person ungrateful is to demand they be grateful, and a quick way to put people off trying to help the environment is to harass people about it when they are trying to do so.

It's a careful line to walk.

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

egg said:

rcs1000 said:

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?

What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...

We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.

your maths is off

2019 - 871 > 1000

That was then Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell in 1962 opposing British membership of the EEC!

he was only 91 years out then

i suppose 9% is ok for government

9% is near as damn perfect for government

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Streeter said:

Johnson inspiring his fellow candidates. Read the thread, it gets worse.

https://twitter.com/jim_cornelius/status/1201793062957178881?s=21

Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room. Environmentalism is riddled with far left extremism. Climate change is their canvas to redraw the world how they want it. A candidate could be single handedly be saving the planet, but hey would still boo him if he was a conservative.

XR are putting cause of climate change mitigation back every time they open their mouths.

I dont think they are. A lot of them are annoying and overblown, and that for some the environmental aspects are just part of a wider wish to reshape society politically is certainly true, but in just the past year there really does seem to have been a change in the way politicians and media talk about climate change, and that does seem down to XR types and their actions.

While the response will not please XR as nothing could, and a lot of the time talk is just talk, theres been so much I do think there will be some actual outcomes too. Doesnt make some of them any less irritating or seeking personal attention through histrionics though.

But, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

A lot of the XR lot are middle-class Johnny come latelys who’ve just wanted to jump on the bandwagon, and have ended up pissing everyone off.

I’d agree that Greta Thunberg had an impact (though she risks going slightly off the boil now as she politicises) and also the BBC, particularly David Attenborough.

The only people who will prevent climate change are cutting edge scientists. Give them a bunch of money - and let them get on with it.

Extinction Rebellion don't want to hear that though. They are the Khmer Rouge of environmentalism, wanting to turn the clock back to Year Zero Carbon.

squareroot2 said:

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Did Ken Clarke say if or how he was voting? Or was “doubtful Conservative” as far as he went?

What a wretched choice the two main parties offer. What is even more dispiriting is that large numbers will vote for them anyway.

Neither is electable, so I will be voting for neither.

They are electable, one or 'tother will be,.

Yes, but Foxy will be warm and smug in his "Don't blame me, I voted for Prime Minister Jo Swinson" T-shirt.....

Mysticrose said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Streeter said:

Johnson inspiring his fellow candidates. Read the thread, it gets worse.

https://twitter.com/jim_cornelius/status/1201793062957178881?s=21

Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room.

Just listen to yourself.

When this election is over, whether right or left win or a combination, the climate will still be a central issue and everyone needs to listen and change.

which is why you need a constructive and a collaborative approach

Casino_Royale said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

SunnyJim said:

Mysticrose said:

Just listen to yourself.
When this election is over, whether right or left win or a combination, the climate will still be a central issue and everyone needs to listen and change.

Challenging candidates with awkward questions is democracy (and activism) at its best.
Hysterical shrieking to drown out opponents in a public forum may provide the hard of thinking with a fleeting hit of dopamine but will alienate the 99.9% who aren't obsessing about the subject.
View the protesters getting pasted round the tube platform by commuters the other week as a case in point.

And ironically they’re not that interested in science either. I’ve certainly learnt over the last year or so, especially since the IPCC special report and the hysteria following it is that many of those claiming to be environmentalists are often very poorly informed, and when their assumptions are challenged react in a way a devoted religious person reacts when you poke holes in what they see as their core belief system.

Indeed, including the new religion of Veganism.
The BBC surprised me by publishing this well-balanced piece including passages from some very respected scientists and analysts who cast serious doubt on the “meat is bad for the environment” orthodoxy:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/meat_environment

Current global meat production is undoubtedly bad for the planet.
Without greatly reducing consumption, non-intensively farmed grass fed ruminants would not get anywhere near supplying current demand. At the moment, it’s increasing.

Charles said:

Mysticrose said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Streeter said:

Johnson inspiring his fellow candidates. Read the thread, it gets worse.

https://twitter.com/jim_cornelius/status/1201793062957178881?s=21

Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room.

Just listen to yourself.

When this election is over, whether right or left win or a combination, the climate will still be a central issue and everyone needs to listen and change.

which is why you need a constructive and a collaborative approach

Indeed

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.

One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.

That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.

Completely agree with this. We have swung from, “Is there anything that you want to add, Minister?” to a level of hyper aggression where letting your interviewee get a word in edge ways is regarded as a weakness. It would be useful to hear what politicians actually think when not being harranged so we have some idea of what they would actually do if we elect them. The media have not had a good campaign.

Absolutely.

The media have been shocking and I do not watch the debates, other than Boris v Corbyn, just as I avoid question time as they just switch most sane people off

Marr was so bad last sunday v Boris my wife walked out in utter disgust at his constant harranguing. I wanted to see Boris put under pressure and hear his answers but in the end it was another example of the interviewer thinking it was all about them

Marr had a very bad day at the office last Sunday.

If I were Boris, I would now offer Andrew Neil a one hour interview in early January, to discuss all aspects of his programme in Government, his Cabinet, Brexit, the BBC - all in a calm post-election atmosphere where the need for gotcha moments has greatly diminshed - and they can actually get down to a meaningful talk.

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

And those with median wealth in the UK are wealthier than 90% of the world's population, so what

Only a rich Tory could come out with crap like that

RochdalePioneers said:

Nick raises a poor Broxtowe estate and I know that he will have done everything that he could as a Labour MP with a Labour government to help the people there.

The reality is that it wasn't enough - this is where the Corbyn project is correct in its assessment. All of these "Labour Heartlands" where Labour now appears to be as toxic a brand as Thatcher ever was. Pre Thatcher they were poor and proud, they had a solid manual job, they grafted, they got by. Then Thatcher demolished the industry their jobs were founded from. Then Major and later Blair evolved the area so that their solid graft job for life was replaced by a less solid warehouse or logistics job.

In short they've gone from being poor but proud to poor with an iPad and angry. Brexit offered them a simple analysis and a simple solution to their ills. It doesn't matter that its a pack of lies. It doesn't matter that they will all be materially poorer after Brexit. They want it. They were promised it. They believe in it. Because when their own side failed to materially change their situation they were willing to believe the other side offering them a cross party cross generational solution.

When I sat unhappy in the Labour Party I used to say that I couldn't see how these voters would go Labour to Conservative. Not *these* voters. Surely. And yet reportedly (*cough* angry sacked Labour regional office staffers) a MILLION Labour leavers have gone Tory. In places like Easington. I'm not predicting that the Tories will take Easignton. But reportedly its on a knife edge, and even for that to be true is a damning indictment of everything thats wrong with politics today. Ignore people. Marginalise people. Use people as voting fodder. Lie to people. Get surprised when people rebel.

Labour collapsed in Scotland. Absolutely demolished. Don't tell me it can't happen in England as well.

It will and to an extent already has just look at all the Tees Valley councils.

However, I don't think the problem is solvable - Look at Redcar exactly what could / can be done to create skilled high income jobs in an area with poor communication links (40 minutes to a motorway, 40 minutes to an airport, 30 minutes by train to a North South line). And they have already protested once by voting Lib Dem back in 2010.

Thatcherism was right in that something needed to replace the existing mining jobs but Norman Tebbit was far more accurate and brutally honest by saying you need to get on your bike.

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.

One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.

That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.

Completely agree with this. We have swung from, “Is there anything that you want to add, Minister?” to a level of hyper aggression where letting your interviewee get a word in edge ways is regarded as a weakness. It would be useful to hear what politicians actually think when not being harranged so we have some idea of what they would actually do if we elect them. The media have not had a good campaign.

Absolutely.

The media have been shocking and I do not watch the debates, other than Boris v Corbyn, just as I avoid question time as they just switch most sane people off

Marr was so bad last sunday v Boris my wife walked out in utter disgust at his constant harranguing. I wanted to see Boris put under pressure and hear his answers but in the end it was another example of the interviewer thinking it was all about them

Marr had a very bad day at the office last Sunday.

If I were Boris, I would now offer Andrew Neil a one hour interview in early January, to discuss all aspects of his programme in Government, his Cabinet, Brexit, the BBC - all in a calm post-election atmosphere where the need for gotcha moments has greatly diminshed - and they can actually get down to a meaningful talk.

Why would Boris offer an interview after the election. That would make him another hostage to fortune and bring the lack of interview back into the news.

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nick raises a poor Broxtowe estate and I know that he will have done everything that he could as a Labour MP with a Labour government to help the people there.

The reality is that it wasn't enough - this is where the Corbyn project is correct in its assessment. All of these "Labour Heartlands" where Labour now appears to be as toxic a brand as Thatcher ever was. Pre Thatcher they were poor and proud, they had a solid manual job, they grafted, they got by. Then Thatcher demolished the industry their jobs were founded from. Then Major and later Blair evolved the area so that their solid graft job for life was replaced by a less solid warehouse or logistics job.

In short they've gone from being poor but proud to poor with an iPad and angry. Brexit offered them a simple analysis and a simple solution to their ills. It doesn't matter that its a pack of lies. It doesn't matter that they will all be materially poorer after Brexit. They want it. They were promised it. They believe in it. Because when their own side failed to materially change their situation they were willing to believe the other side offering them a cross party cross generational solution.

When I sat unhappy in the Labour Party I used to say that I couldn't see how these voters would go Labour to Conservative. Not *these* voters. Surely. And yet reportedly (*cough* angry sacked Labour regional office staffers) a MILLION Labour leavers have gone Tory. In places like Easington. I'm not predicting that the Tories will take Easignton. But reportedly its on a knife edge, and even for that to be true is a damning indictment of everything thats wrong with politics today. Ignore people. Marginalise people. Use people as voting fodder. Lie to people. Get surprised when people rebel.

Labour collapsed in Scotland. Absolutely demolished. Don't tell me it can't happen in England as well.

It will and to an extent already has just look at all the Tees Valley councils.

However, I don't think the problem is solvable - Look at Redcar exactly what could / can be done to create skilled high income jobs in an area with poor communication links (40 minutes to a motorway, 40 minutes to an airport, 30 minutes by train to a North South line). And they have already protested once by voting Lib Dem back in 2010.

Thatcherism was right in that something needed to replace the existing mining jobs but Norman Tebbit was far more accurate and brutally honest by saying you need to get on your bike.

I've family in Redcar. Theres some nice bits, but I'd also never come across a place that seemed to meet the stereotype of the grim northern area until there, I can totally understand the anger

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

And those with median wealth in the UK are wealthier than 90% of the world's population, so what

Only a rich Tory could come out with crap like that

Get Corbyn in and our position amongst the richest economies GDP per capita wise would soon be in peril, see Venezuela or Cuba

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.

One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.

That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.

Completely agree with this. We have swung from, “Is there anything that you want to add, Minister?” to a level of hyper aggression where letting your interviewee get a word in edge ways is regarded as a weakness. It would be useful to hear what politicians actually think when not being harranged so we have some idea of what they would actually do if we elect them. The media have not had a good campaign.

Absolutely.

The media have been shocking and I do not watch the debates, other than Boris v Corbyn, just as I avoid question time as they just switch most sane people off

Marr was so bad last sunday v Boris my wife walked out in utter disgust at his constant harranguing. I wanted to see Boris put under pressure and hear his answers but in the end it was another example of the interviewer thinking it was all about them

Marr had a very bad day at the office last Sunday.

If I were Boris, I would now offer Andrew Neil a one hour interview in early January, to discuss all aspects of his programme in Government, his Cabinet, Brexit, the BBC - all in a calm post-election atmosphere where the need for gotcha moments has greatly diminshed - and they can actually get down to a meaningful talk.

Because the electorate really need that information after the election, right?
Born to rule arrogance.

kle4 said:

eek said:

It will and to an extent already has just look at all the Tees Valley councils.

However, I don't think the problem is solvable - Look at Redcar exactly what could / can be done to create skilled high income jobs in an area with poor communication links (40 minutes to a motorway, 40 minutes to an airport, 30 minutes by train to a North South line). And they have already protested once by voting Lib Dem back in 2010.

Thatcherism was right in that something needed to replace the existing mining jobs but Norman Tebbit was far more accurate and brutally honest by saying you need to get on your bike.

I've family in Redcar. Theres some nice bits, but I'd also never come across a place that seemed to meet the stereotype of the grim northern area until there, I can totally understand the anger

You should visit County Durham. Outside of Durham, Barnard Castle and Newton Aycliffe (note Darlington is now Tees Valley not County Durham) it's relentlessly grim. Beautiful countryside but the towns have rarely if ever seen good days and never in the past 30 years

kle4 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nick raises a poor Broxtowe estate and I know that he will have done everything that he could as a Labour MP with a Labour government to help the people there.

The reality is that it wasn't enough - this is where the Corbyn project is correct in its assessment. All of these "Labour Heartlands" where Labour now appears to be as toxic a brand as Thatcher ever was. Pre Thatcher they were poor and proud, they had a solid manual job, they grafted, they got by. Then Thatcher demolished the industry their jobs were founded from. Then Major and later Blair evolved the area so that their solid graft job for life was replaced by a less solid warehouse or logistics job.

In short they've gone from being poor but proud to poor with an iPad and angry. Brexit offered them a simple analysis and a simple solution to their ills. It doesn't matter that its a pack of lies. It doesn't matter that they will all be materially poorer after Brexit. They want it. They were promised it. They believe in it. Because when their own side failed to materially change their situation they were willing to believe the other side offering them a cross party cross generational solution.

When I sat unhappy in the Labour Party I used to say that I couldn't see how these voters would go Labour to Conservative. Not *these* voters. Surely. when people rebel.

Labour collapsed in Scotland. Absolutely demolished. Don't tell me it can't happen in England as well.

We're waiting for it to happen in Wales. Oh, glorious day.

When I was in Ireland recently, they had a beautifully pragmatic view of the role of the TDs. I repeatedly heard, "Yes, he's a grand TD, he has bought a lot of Government money into North Kildare". Or Limerick. Or whatever. At least, the TDs recognized their job was to fight for their constituents.

The Welsh Labour MPs have done nothing for the South Wales valleys. Their master is the Labour party.

There is no better example than the Barnett formula. Despite the fact that this impoverishes Wales (& the North of England) relative to other regions, the South Walian Labour MPs all voted for it. It was good for Labour party unity.

I wil never forgive the Labour party for the damage it has inflicted on Wales.

The Scots showed the way. I have no doubt that the constituents in the Scottish central belt are better off with SNP MPs arguing their cause than vacuous Labour MPs, serving the interests of Labour in Westminster.

Do you think labours grip on wales is reaching a tipping point, even if not as dramatic as in scotland?

No.

Pro_Rata said:

Do we get a You Gov MRP update this evening?

I hope so, although as I said yesterday in 2017 the original YouGov MRP figures were more accurate than the final ones before the election.

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

For me, Tommy, zis election is over.

Postal vote?

Posting our household votes today, 2 for SNP

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.

One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.

That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.

Completely agree with this. We have swung from, “Is there anything that you want to add, Minister?” to a level of hyper aggression where letting your interviewee get a word in edge ways is regarded as a weakness. It would be useful to hear what politicians actually think when not being harranged so we have some idea of what they would actually do if we elect them. The media have not had a good campaign.

Absolutely.

The media have been shocking and I do not watch the debates, other than Boris v Corbyn, just as I avoid question time as they just switch most sane people off

Marr was so bad last sunday v Boris my wife walked out in utter disgust at his constant harranguing. I wanted to see Boris put under pressure and hear his answers but in the end it was another example of the interviewer thinking it was all about them

Marr had a very bad day at the office last Sunday.

If I were Boris, I would now offer Andrew Neil a one hour interview in early January, to discuss all aspects of his programme in Government, his Cabinet, Brexit, the BBC - all in a calm post-election atmosphere where the need for gotcha moments has greatly diminshed - and they can actually get down to a meaningful talk.

Because the electorate really need that information after the election, right?
Born to rule arrogance.

Amazing to hear the establishment fanboys say not only is Brexit the fault of remainers yesterday, but today we find out the reason we dont know what the PM thinks is because of Marr, not because he refuses to do serious interviews and debates, and when he does speak he invariably tells people what is to his advantage rather than his real thoughts.

NickPalmer said:

It's been like that up to a point for a long time. There's a little estate in Broxtowe where people are really seriously poor. Lots of single parents, some elderly people down on their luck, some drug-dealers, nothing much to do. Most people living there are better off under Labour governments, but by and large they don't vote - life is rough, politics is for other people. What's changing is that a proportion of them voted Brexit and have now moved on to voting Tory.

It's a problem for the left that the people we think we're about helping are mostly disengaged. Just as in the US the Democrats look for votes from schoolteachers more thantrailer parks, in Britain Labour has rarely done much to try to mobilise the very poor, simply because it's so difficult - I often puzzled over it, and tried many times to interest that estate, but they were perfectly politely just not interested. At election time, it was always more promising to canvass an area with more people in work and getting something out of life.

I'm not proud of it, and one can argue that if the Tories win desperate Northern seats we had it coming. But I don't think they'll be happy with a Tory government either. A grim life is a grim life, and the differences that we all make are on the margins.

Good fair response - I have heard this measured response from various "commissions" into social justice before but they tend to be drowned out by those who are there just to progress their own welfare so usually these commissions recommend more teachers, more social welfare officers, in deed more middle classes taking the money that was genuinely meant to help these people.

And, as I suggested yesterday, if these seats do return 8 or 10 new Tory MPs, they will tend towards being local councillors or local workers - the A Listers never looked at these unlikely to win seats - vide Scott Mann in the SW. Therefore, if following if, they are elected Boris need to let these MPs get on with it and give them enough money to make a real difference to the lives of these people. The Boris I have met is up for that.

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

For me, Tommy, zis election is over.

Postal vote?

Yep.

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

For me, Tommy, zis election is over.

Postal vote?

Yep.

By voting so early, you must be one of these low-information Labour voters we hear so much about.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

And those with median wealth in the UK are wealthier than 90% of the world's population, so what

Only a rich Tory could come out with crap like that

Get Corbyn in and our position amongst the richest economies GDP per capita wise would soon be in peril, see Venezuela or Cuba

Your attitude to wealth expressed in your sentence finishing with 'so what' is insensitive and not where a compassionate conservative should be

There is nothing compassionate about sacrificing wealth in favour of socialism

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

NickPalmer said:

It's been like that up to a point for a long time. There's a little estate in Broxtowe where people are really seriously poor. Lots of single parents, some elderly people down on their luck, some drug-dealers, nothing much to do. Most people living there are better off under Labour governments, but by and large they don't vote - life is rough, politics is for other people. What's changing is that a proportion of them voted Brexit and have now moved on to voting Tory.

It's a problem for the left that the people we think we're about helping are mostly disengaged. Just as in the US the Democrats look for votes from schoolteachers more thantrailer parks, in Britain Labour has rarely done much to try to mobilise the very poor, simply because it's so difficult - I often puzzled over it, and tried many times to interest that estate, but they were perfectly politely just not interested. At election time, it was always more promising to canvass an area with more people in work and getting something out of life.

I'm not proud of it, and one can argue that if the Tories win desperate Northern seats we had it coming. But I don't think they'll be happy with a Tory government either. A grim life is a grim life, and the differences that we all make are on the margins.

Good fair response - I have heard this measured response from various "commissions" into social justice before but they tend to be drowned out by those who are there just to progress their own welfare so usually these commissions recommend more teachers, more social welfare officers, in deed more middle classes taking the money that was genuinely meant to help these people.

And, as I suggested yesterday, if these seats do return 8 or 10 new Tory MPs, they will tend towards being local councillors or local workers - the A Listers never looked at these unlikely to win seats - vide Scott Mann in the SW. Therefore, if following if, they are elected Boris need to let these MPs get on with it and give them enough money to make a real difference to the lives of these people. The Boris I have met is up for that.

Yet the candidates likely to win those seats aren't local councillors but those brought in from outside the area. The Tory candidate for Darlington lives outside York, their candidate in Bishop Auckland was formerly a student and comes from Sheffield. OK the Sedgefield Tory candidate lives in Darlington but wasn't liked enough to stand in the constituency he lives and is a councillor in.

Andy_JS said:

Pro_Rata said:

Do we get a You Gov MRP update this evening?

I hope so, although as I said yesterday in 2017 the original YouGov MRP figures were more accurate than the final ones before the election.

We won't until next week just before polling day I assume

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

And those with median wealth in the UK are wealthier than 90% of the world's population, so what

Only a rich Tory could come out with crap like that

Very poor from HYUFD

Morning G, He is the type that give the Tories such a bad name.

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.

One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.

That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.

Completely agree with this. We have swung from, “Is there anything that you want to add, Minister?” to a level of hyper aggression where letting your interviewee get a word in edge ways is regarded as a weakness. It would be useful to hear what politicians actually think when not being harranged so we have some idea of what they would actually do if we elect them. The media have not had a good campaign.

Absolutely.

The media have been shocking and I do not watch the debates, other than Boris v Corbyn, just as I avoid question time as they just switch most sane people off

Marr was so bad last sunday v Boris my wife walked out in utter disgust at his constant harranguing. I wanted to see Boris put under pressure and hear his answers but in the end it was another example of the interviewer thinking it was all about them

Marr had a very bad day at the office last Sunday.

If I were Boris, I would now offer Andrew Neil a one hour interview in early January, to discuss all aspects of his programme in Government, his Cabinet, Brexit, the BBC - all in a calm post-election atmosphere where the need for gotcha moments has greatly diminshed - and they can actually get down to a meaningful talk.

Because the electorate really need that information after the election, right?
Born to rule arrogance.

Amazing to hear the establishment fanboys say not only is Brexit the fault of remainers yesterday, but today we find out the reason we dont know what the PM thinks is because of Marr, not because he refuses to do serious interviews and debates, and when he does speak he invariably tells people what is to his advantage rather than his real thoughts.

You saying Marr is not a serious interview?

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

As I expected and asked last week, we’re now starting to get the luvvies (Hugh Grant and a couple of Lefty stand-up comics) standing up and saying we’re all going to hell in a handcart if we don’t kick the Tories out.

The Guardian letter can only be days away.

Dear Ashfield, Grimsby, West Bromwich, Stoke plebs,

I know in your ignorance you have already voted for Brexit please do not compound the problem by giving Boris Johnson a majority. Instead please vote for your left liberal woke candidate we approve of and go back to voting Labour like you usually do and then we can conveniently ignore you for the rest of the Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Grant and other luvvies,

Islington, Hampstead etc

Even if Ashfield, Grimsby.. vote for Brexit they will be ignored once this election is over until the next one.

Dura_Ace said:

Nigelb said:

Current global meat production is undoubtedly bad for the planet.
Without greatly reducing consumption, non-intensively farmed grass fed ruminants would not get anywhere near supplying current demand. At the moment, it’s increasing.

The "vegan" interior was a £3k option on my Taycan. Porsche know which way the wind is blowing.

Did you take up the raffia seating option?

Conservatives promise £4.2 billion for bus, tram and rail services outside London

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50651235

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

If ever there was a leader of a democratic nation who would react in a seriously dumb and damaging way because of gentle ribbing from other leaders it is Donald Trump. Is there a more fragile ego on the planet?

Amy Klobuchar?

Baemy does not have a fragile ego, and when you go to Iowa you'd better make sure she's not in stapler range before you repeat that slander.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

And those with median wealth in the UK are wealthier than 90% of the world's population, so what

Only a rich Tory could come out with crap like that

Get Corbyn in and our position amongst the richest economies GDP per capita wise would soon be in peril, see Venezuela or Cuba

Your attitude to wealth expressed in your sentence finishing with 'so what' is insensitive and not where a compassionate conservative should be

There is nothing compassionate about sacrificing wealth in favour of socialism

That is crass

No it is being a conservative based on the Thatcherite principle you do not help the poor by making the rich less rich

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/08/thatcher_on_socialism_he_would_rather_the_poor_were_poorer_provided_the_rich_were_less_rich.html