Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls aren’t moving but Labour shouldn’t be too concerned

135678

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    Enda said:

    stodge said:

    Back to matters more mundane.

    The two horror stories coming out of this are care homes which we are already discussing and the rise in domestic violence about which little has been said. I'm aware of a number of authorities frantically seeking to bring former sites into use as refuges for the surge in domestic violence cases - I think we will hear some really unpleasant stories coming out.

    There has been some reports about the rise in domestic violence reported here in London. Whilst the Met Police officers have been making an average of nearly 100 arrests every day for domestic abuse offences during the lockdown, charities said reports to them are up by around a quarter. This gap has caused concern that victims are unable or unwilling to come forward.

    Little seems to have been said about concerns of a surge in child neglect and child abuse. There has been the horrific case in Ilford of two children aged one and three dying after their father slit their throats. British charity the Food Foundation reported that in a fifth of UK homes with children, these children are having to go without meals. They also identfied that some 1.5 million Britons reported not eating for a whole day. A paper by the Centre for Economic Performance also suggests that the closure of schools in response to the Covid-19 pandemic has “opened up a chasm” in educational achievement, both in the short and long term, and this is without taking into account the mental and physical toll on children of being in lockdown.
    One other very good reason for rearranging the school holdiays is it will alleviate this - particularly the nutrition element. The faster we can reopen schools, the faster we can get them eating and the less damaging it will be.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,096
    I have had four separate text messages from Dominoes this week - how much Pizza do they think a man can eat?!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Not just the blandness, but after the pink buses, t-shirts etc the party ended up with a white, stale, male.
    Labour might get their first woman leader 50 years after Thatcher became leader of the Tories.

    Might.
    There is such an awesome pun I could make here if the c-bomb wasn’t banned.

    If I wanted to be picky though, technically of course under the rules in place at the time both Beckett and Harman were leaders.
    I’m pretty sure being pedantic is frowned upon here.
    I think you missed out the word 'not' in that sentence.
    Not being pedantic is frowned upon? I dunno...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885

    What's everyone reading during lockdown ? I am not a great fiction reader but read some non fiction in the last 7 weeks including

    The Games - David Goldblatt (history of the Olympics)
    The Crucibles greatest matches -Hector Nunns (I love snooker and any "pub" game)
    Who dares wins -Dominic Sandbrook (Britain 1979-1982)
    The medal factory - About British Cycling and its recent triumphs and tribulations.
    A better betting with a decent fellow - A social history of Bookmaking
    A short history of Europe - Simon Jenkins
    A short history of London -Simon Jenkins
    Ghosts at the table - a history of poker
    Airhead -Emily Maitlis

    Quite proud of myself even if all on my sort of hobbies!

    Just finished The Korean War , moving on to the Kremlin Letters
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,164
    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    ydoethur said:

    Thanks to box sets, home-schooling parents don't need history teachers!

    Oi!

    Edit - although your other three have some merit, Blackadder was not particularly historically accurate. It owed more to Alan Clark’s novel than any realistic appraisal of the facts of life in the Great War.

    It is very, very funny though.
    That book - is it Lions and Donkeys? It was before my time. That's the Tory pol isn't it? If so, why did Clark did he adopt that approach? Just wondering ...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    kle4 said:

    I have had four separate text messages from Dominoes this week - how much Pizza do they think a man can eat?!

    They’re dotty, or a lot of blanks.

    Ah, my coat...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    Tax harms the economy and cuts growth. Why put it up?
    Not immediately. Like I said, the economy needs to recover. Tax cuts, if anything, in the short term.
    Given how interest rates have been cut there will be many people thinking they should spend more of their savings.

    Especially if they are having new thoughts about their own mortality.

    Any tax cuts should be on employment taxes.
    It's by no means out of the question that rates on savings could go negative for a period.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thanks to box sets, home-schooling parents don't need history teachers!

    Oi!

    Edit - although your other three have some merit, Blackadder was not particularly historically accurate. It owed more to Alan Clark’s novel than any realistic appraisal of the facts of life in the Great War.

    It is very, very funny though.
    That book - is it Lions and Donkeys? It was before my time. That's the Tory pol isn't it? If so, why did Clark did he adopt that approach? Just wondering ...
    The Donkeys.

    And I think his motivation was simply to make money.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    I wanted to respond to Cyclefree's excellent contribution on the previous thread.

    I understand her frustration at the VE-day celebrations. We emphasise this rather than VJ-day and there was still a major conflict going on in Asia when we were celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany.

    Yet Liberation Day (and that in many ways is far more appropriate a title) is still celebrated every year in the Channel Islands and we have little or no perception of what it is like to be conquered and the sheer unalloyed joy of liberation and the restoration of freedom.

    Apart from countries which were neutral in both World Wars only Britain of all the nations of Europe has never experienced what it is like to be conquered in modern times. To have hostile foreign troops walking down your streets, to be told what you do and when to do it by "the enemy" and to be second class citizens in your own country.

    I think it's right we continue to celebrate our liberation and that of the world from the darkness of Naziism and celebrate all those who contributed to that including the USSR and the various resistance groups. We were alone for a while but we won with the help of large parts of the rest of the world. As someone said the Americans provided the money, the Russians provided the blood and we provided the time.

    Indeed, even Berlin is celebrating VE Day today as liberation from Nazi rule.

    The only people who are not seem to be a few diehard Remainers like Alistair Meeks and Cyclefree who refuse to join Brexiteers in celebrating anything and the AfD in Germany who refuse to celebrate a German defeat, even if it was the Nazis defeated

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52574748
    Brexit has square root of nothing to do with it.

    Today is the anniversary of the liberation of Europe from the Nazis and the end of one of the worst evils the world has ever seen. Today's mundane international politics isn't relevant.
    Which Europe? 1945 also saw half of Europe occupied by the Soviets for over 40 years...
    Exactly , hardly a roaring success.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    malcolmg said:

    What's everyone reading during lockdown ? I am not a great fiction reader but read some non fiction in the last 7 weeks including

    The Games - David Goldblatt (history of the Olympics)
    The Crucibles greatest matches -Hector Nunns (I love snooker and any "pub" game)
    Who dares wins -Dominic Sandbrook (Britain 1979-1982)
    The medal factory - About British Cycling and its recent triumphs and tribulations.
    A better betting with a decent fellow - A social history of Bookmaking
    A short history of Europe - Simon Jenkins
    A short history of London -Simon Jenkins
    Ghosts at the table - a history of poker
    Airhead -Emily Maitlis

    Quite proud of myself even if all on my sort of hobbies!

    Just finished The Korean War , moving on to the Kremlin Letters
    Hello Malky, just finished TKW myself by coincidence - the Hastings book I take it?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,779
    malcolmg said:

    What's everyone reading during lockdown ? I am not a great fiction reader but read some non fiction in the last 7 weeks including

    The Games - David Goldblatt (history of the Olympics)
    The Crucibles greatest matches -Hector Nunns (I love snooker and any "pub" game)
    Who dares wins -Dominic Sandbrook (Britain 1979-1982)
    The medal factory - About British Cycling and its recent triumphs and tribulations.
    A better betting with a decent fellow - A social history of Bookmaking
    A short history of Europe - Simon Jenkins
    A short history of London -Simon Jenkins
    Ghosts at the table - a history of poker
    Airhead -Emily Maitlis

    Quite proud of myself even if all on my sort of hobbies!

    Just finished The Korean War , moving on to the Kremlin Letters
    The Silk Roads - Peter Frankopan. It's a rather different view of World History to the one I was taught.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thanks to box sets, home-schooling parents don't need history teachers!

    Oi!

    Edit - although your other three have some merit, Blackadder was not particularly historically accurate. It owed more to Alan Clark’s novel than any realistic appraisal of the facts of life in the Great War.

    It is very, very funny though.
    That book - is it Lions and Donkeys? It was before my time. That's the Tory pol isn't it? If so, why did Clark did he adopt that approach? Just wondering ...
    The Donkeys.

    And I think his motivation was simply to make money.
    Thank you!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,758
    Enda said:


    There has been some reports about the rise in domestic violence reported here in London. Whilst the Met Police officers have been making an average of nearly 100 arrests every day for domestic abuse offences during the lockdown, charities said reports to them are up by around a quarter. This gap has caused concern that victims are unable or unwilling to come forward.

    Little seems to have been said about concerns of a surge in child neglect and child abuse. There has been the horrific case in Ilford of two children aged one and three dying after their father slit their throats. British charity the Food Foundation reported that in a fifth of UK homes with children, these children are having to go without meals. They also identfied that some 1.5 million Britons reported not eating for a whole day. A paper by the Centre for Economic Performance also suggests that the closure of schools in response to the Covid-19 pandemic has “opened up a chasm” in educational achievement, both in the short and long term, and this is without taking into account the mental and physical toll on children of being in lockdown.

    Indeed and I hadn't forgotten other forms of abuse or neglect either.

    I'll be honest - there will be those for whom work was an absolute necessity - without the wage they could not afford to pay rent or eat.

    Some of those won't have been able either through lack of knowledge or lack of awareness (and I include language in that) to access Sunak's furlough money and will have been left with nothing even though they might have been entitled to 80% or more of their wage.

    The true costs of this aren't going to be in terms of GDP percentages but in terms of lives lost or blighted and families left grieving. It's those human details that don't make their way onto spreadsheets, graphs and tables.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,409
    Mr. Owls, seats make a party into a government.

    Labour could get 15 million votes, but if the Conservatives win 326 seats it won't put the former into power.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688
    coach said:

    kinabalu said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Throw up.
    Quite funny, what I've said about Starmer is opinion, the other three is fact
    Yes, "bit of a character" populists, this has certainly been a trend. I think Trump losing big in November might reverse it though. The world faces some pretty complex interconnected problems, so perhaps competence will make a comeback. Not that Merkel ever went away or anything.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2020
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Not just the blandness, but after the pink buses, t-shirts etc the party ended up with a white, stale, male.
    Labour might get their first woman leader 50 years after Thatcher became leader of the Tories.

    Might.
    There is such an awesome pun I could make here if the c-bomb wasn’t banned.

    If I wanted to be picky though, technically of course under the rules in place at the time both Beckett and Harman were leaders.
    I’m pretty sure being pedantic is frowned upon here.
    I think you missed out the word 'not' in that sentence.
    Not being pedantic is frowned upon? I dunno...
    The other day I said to someone not to be pedantic and they nitpicked something in that reply.

    Pedantry is virtually compulsory here it seems sometimes.

    Though I imagine it's another irregular verb.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,935
    31000 mark passed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Not just the blandness, but after the pink buses, t-shirts etc the party ended up with a white, stale, male.
    Labour might get their first woman leader 50 years after Thatcher became leader of the Tories.

    Might.
    There is such an awesome pun I could make here if the c-bomb wasn’t banned.

    If I wanted to be picky though, technically of course under the rules in place at the time both Beckett and Harman were leaders.
    I’m pretty sure being pedantic is frowned upon here.
    I think you missed out the word 'not' in that sentence.
    Not being pedantic is frowned upon? I dunno...
    The other day I said to someone not to be pedantic and they nitpicked something in that reply.

    Pedantry is virtually compulsory here it seems sometimes.

    Though I imagine it's another irregular verb.
    I am exact.

    You are a pedant.

    He is a bloody nuisance?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    I wouldn't say favourites, but the Tories will have been in office for 14 years, so time for a change will resonate as a message.
    Did not for Kinnock in 1992 after 13 years of Tory rule, though he made gains, did for Cameron in 2010 after 13 years of Labour rule but still not enough for a Tory majority
    Did for Wilson in 1964 after 13 years of Conservative rule.
    Wilson won a majority of just 4 seats and Home won a majority of English seats in 1964
    Few were predicting a Labour victory in 1960 or early 1961.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    kinabalu said:

    coach said:

    kinabalu said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Throw up.
    Quite funny, what I've said about Starmer is opinion, the other three is fact
    Yes, "bit of a character" populists, this has certainly been a trend. I think Trump losing big in November might reverse it though. The world faces some pretty complex interconnected problems, so perhaps competence will make a comeback. Not that Merkel ever went away or anything.
    Such a shame that he’s only on course to lose Big, rather than the Presidency.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688

    kinabalu said:

    On Topic I think Labour will do better than 2019 but unlikely to match the % of vote achieved in 2017.

    I would be very happy if they do better than that minimum success target

    If we lose again - which we won't - we would need to have a long hard think about what the party is for.
    How do you define lose?

    What would be success?
    I suppose in the same way. Who goes to number 10. Labour PM to me will be a success. Tory PM is failure.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    You need to look at the two party preferred share of the vote.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,092
    edited May 2020

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    I suppose it doesn't occur to you that the fact that Jezza got the most votes vs other Labour leaders and still lost is a measure of how much the country really, really didn't want him as prime minister.
  • johnoundlejohnoundle Posts: 120
    RobD said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Not just the blandness, but after the pink buses, t-shirts etc the party ended up with a white, stale, male.
    Labour might get their first woman leader 50 years after Thatcher became leader of the Tories.

    Might.
    It's amazing for a so called progressive party, no female or BAME leader, I guess it just confirms the dearth of talent in the current Labour party.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    coach said:

    kinabalu said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Throw up.
    Quite funny, what I've said about Starmer is opinion, the other three is fact
    Yes, "bit of a character" populists, this has certainly been a trend. I think Trump losing big in November might reverse it though. The world faces some pretty complex interconnected problems, so perhaps competence will make a comeback. Not that Merkel ever went away or anything.
    Such a shame that he’s only on course to lose Big, rather than the Presidency.
    I note that was your very first (!) post after the discussion on pedantry.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Yes, amazing. They don't like Corbyn, so they pretend that never happened.

    I would take as much as anyone wants at EVS on Sir Keir's Labour beating Jeremy Corbyn's Labour's 12,868,460 at a GE

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    coach said:

    kinabalu said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Throw up.
    Quite funny, what I've said about Starmer is opinion, the other three is fact
    Yes, "bit of a character" populists, this has certainly been a trend. I think Trump losing big in November might reverse it though. The world faces some pretty complex interconnected problems, so perhaps competence will make a comeback. Not that Merkel ever went away or anything.
    Such a shame that he’s only on course to lose Big, rather than the Presidency.
    I note that was your very first (!) post after the discussion on pedantry.
    I just couldn’t resist!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thanks to box sets, home-schooling parents don't need history teachers!

    Oi!

    Edit - although your other three have some merit, Blackadder was not particularly historically accurate. It owed more to Alan Clark’s novel than any realistic appraisal of the facts of life in the Great War.

    It is very, very funny though.
    That book - is it Lions and Donkeys? It was before my time. That's the Tory pol isn't it? If so, why did Clark did he adopt that approach? Just wondering ...
    Yes, and see also the musical Oh What a Lovely War based on it. There is a great deal of truth in the lions led by donkeys caricature, especially early on in the trenches, and the war poets added to this. More recently the focus has shifted to the later stages, when innovative equipment and tactics (often led by colonial armies) swept us to victory.

    You could do worse than watch Churchill's First World War, most of which can be seen online at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3htrrp

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    Chris Huhne being re-elected right now. Increased majority.

    Really funny in retrospect. There was no point to his career. Unlike his licence...

    What would it have been like had he beaten Clegg in the leadership contest?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Excellent header.

    For me the other huge issue for Sir Kenneth is how effectively he will clean house, but that will probably require the EHCR Report to come out first for him to have the authority to do the clearance, rather than causing a civil war.

    Do you mean Sir Keir, or are you expecting him to be a Starr?

    Interesting as well that two of the three largest national parties are led by knights.
    Four largest, surely? depending on what 'national' means.
    Bit like UK = England I think.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    Tax harms the economy and cuts growth. Why put it up?
    Not immediately. Like I said, the economy needs to recover. Tax cuts, if anything, in the short term.
    Given how interest rates have been cut there will be many people thinking they should spend more of their savings.

    Especially if they are having new thoughts about their own mortality.

    Any tax cuts should be on employment taxes.
    It's by no means out of the question that rates on savings could go negative for a period.
    In real terms, taking into account inflation, they may have already.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    edited May 2020
    ydoethur said:

    Enda said:

    stodge said:

    Back to matters more mundane.

    The two horror stories coming out of this are care homes which we are already discussing and the rise in domestic violence about which little has been said. I'm aware of a number of authorities frantically seeking to bring former sites into use as refuges for the surge in domestic violence cases - I think we will hear some really unpleasant stories coming out.

    There has been some reports about the rise in domestic violence reported here in London. Whilst the Met Police officers have been making an average of nearly 100 arrests every day for domestic abuse offences during the lockdown, charities said reports to them are up by around a quarter. This gap has caused concern that victims are unable or unwilling to come forward.

    Little seems to have been said about concerns of a surge in child neglect and child abuse. There has been the horrific case in Ilford of two children aged one and three dying after their father slit their throats. British charity the Food Foundation reported that in a fifth of UK homes with children, these children are having to go without meals. They also identfied that some 1.5 million Britons reported not eating for a whole day. A paper by the Centre for Economic Performance also suggests that the closure of schools in response to the Covid-19 pandemic has “opened up a chasm” in educational achievement, both in the short and long term, and this is without taking into account the mental and physical toll on children of being in lockdown.
    One other very good reason for rearranging the school holdiays is it will alleviate this - particularly the nutrition element. The faster we can reopen schools, the faster we can get them eating and the less damaging it will be.
    Is there any realistic prospect of the schools reopening properly this side of a vaccine? They aren't built big enough to accommodate more than a fraction of their pupils at any one time whilst maintaining social distancing, and that's without dealing with the issues of children who refuse to keep, or are incapable of keeping, well apart from one another; frightened parents refusing to send their kids back; or frightened teachers demanding an unlimited supply of disposable hazmat suits and medical grade masks before they'll go within half-a-mile of a child.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    edited May 2020

    ydoethur said:

    Enda said:

    stodge said:

    Back to matters more mundane.

    The two horror stories coming out of this are care homes which we are already discussing and the rise in domestic violence about which little has been said. I'm aware of a number of authorities frantically seeking to bring former sites into use as refuges for the surge in domestic violence cases - I think we will hear some really unpleasant stories coming out.

    There has been some reports about the rise in domestic violence reported here in London. Whilst the Met Police officers have been making an average of nearly 100 arrests every day for domestic abuse offences during the lockdown, charities said reports to them are up by around a quarter. This gap has caused concern that victims are unable or unwilling to come forward.

    Little seems to have been said about concerns of a surge in child neglect and child abuse. There has been the horrific case in Ilford of two children aged one and three dying after their father slit their throats. British charity the Food Foundation reported that in a fifth of UK homes with children, these children are having to go without meals. They also identfied that some 1.5 million Britons reported not eating for a whole day. A paper by the Centre for Economic Performance also suggests that the closure of schools in response to the Covid-19 pandemic has “opened up a chasm” in educational achievement, both in the short and long term, and this is without taking into account the mental and physical toll on children of being in lockdown.
    One other very good reason for rearranging the school holdiays is it will alleviate this - particularly the nutrition element. The faster we can reopen schools, the faster we can get them eating and the less damaging it will be.
    Is there any realistic prospect of the schools reopening properly this side of a vaccine? They aren't built big enough to accommodate more than a fraction of their pupils at any one time whilst maintaining social distancing, and that's without dealing with the issues of children who refuse or are incapable of keeping well apart from one another, frightened parents refusing to send their kids back, or frightened teachers demanding an unlimited supply of disposable hazmat suits and medical grade masks before they'll go within half-a-mile of a child.
    Unless there is a realistic prospect of a vaccine this autumn, which there isn’t, they will have to be, masks or no.

    The compromise I think will be extensive use of hand sanitizer.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Excellent header.

    For me the other huge issue for Sir Kenneth is how effectively he will clean house, but that will probably require the EHCR Report to come out first for him to have the authority to do the clearance, rather than causing a civil war.

    Do you mean Sir Keir, or are you expecting him to be a Starr?

    Interesting as well that two of the three largest national parties are led by knights.
    Four largest, surely? depending on what 'national' means.
    If the SNP were a national instead of nationalist party, Sturgeon would be PM right now.
    Actually, my point stands - the LDs aren't a national party either, and nor are Labour, if we apply your criteria, as they don't stand in all four nations of the UK.
    A reasonable point, to which I would answer however that their association short of Union with the SDLP and Alliance parties makes them parties with at least a national outlook.

    And on a more pertinent point, the SNP don’t even pretend to aspire to national government. They are only interested in Scotland.
    So Scotland is not a Nation
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,758



    It's amazing for a so called progressive party, no female or BAME leader, I guess it just confirms the dearth of talent in the current Labour party.

    Nothing to do with that of course and a cheap jibe at best.

    Thatcher only became Conservative leader in 1975 because Keith Joseph said some silly things and ruled himself out. Had he not done so and run for the leadership, Thatcher would likely have been his campaign manager and might have run his Shadow Chancellor.

    Whitelaw might well have succeeded under Joseph so May might (as it were) have first been the first female leader and PM.

    Under other circumstances, Harriet Harman might have led the Labour Party and Margaret Beckett did lead the Labour party in a caretaker capacity from John Smith's death to Tony Blair's election.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688
    edited May 2020

    RobD said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Not just the blandness, but after the pink buses, t-shirts etc the party ended up with a white, stale, male.
    Labour might get their first woman leader 50 years after Thatcher became leader of the Tories.

    Might.
    It's amazing for a so called progressive party, no female or BAME leader, I guess it just confirms the dearth of talent in the current Labour party.
    Or it could be that we do not need to try so hard to prove our credentials on this, since they are universally accepted.

    A sort of reverse Nixon Goes To China, if you will. By which I don't mean China goes to Nixon. Just that Labour not needing a female leader as badly as other parties is essentially the same but the very opposite of a Republican president being more able to go to communist China than a Democrat.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Excellent header.

    For me the other huge issue for Sir Kenneth is how effectively he will clean house, but that will probably require the EHCR Report to come out first for him to have the authority to do the clearance, rather than causing a civil war.

    Do you mean Sir Keir, or are you expecting him to be a Starr?

    Interesting as well that two of the three largest national parties are led by knights.
    Four largest, surely? depending on what 'national' means.
    If the SNP were a national instead of nationalist party, Sturgeon would be PM right now.
    Actually, my point stands - the LDs aren't a national party either, and nor are Labour, if we apply your criteria, as they don't stand in all four nations of the UK.
    A reasonable point, to which I would answer however that their association short of Union with the SDLP and Alliance parties makes them parties with at least a national outlook.

    And on a more pertinent point, the SNP don’t even pretend to aspire to national government. They are only interested in Scotland.
    So Scotland is not a Nation
    It is not a nation state, no.

    Nor is my own nation of Wales.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    Tax harms the economy and cuts growth. Why put it up?
    Not immediately. Like I said, the economy needs to recover. Tax cuts, if anything, in the short term.
    Given how interest rates have been cut there will be many people thinking they should spend more of their savings.

    Especially if they are having new thoughts about their own mortality.

    Any tax cuts should be on employment taxes.
    It's by no means out of the question that rates on savings could go negative for a period.
    In real terms, taking into account inflation, they may have already.
    Accounting for inflation, savings rates have effectively been negative for most of the last decade. Your cash savings will only have been growing in real terms if you're adding more than sufficient sums to them to compensate for this effect.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    He looks like a dud to me. Of course, that might not matter.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,758
    ydoethur said:

    Chris Huhne being re-elected right now. Increased majority.

    Really funny in retrospect. There was no point to his career. Unlike his licence...

    What would it have been like had he beaten Clegg in the leadership contest?

    Short answer, I don't think the Coalition would have happened in the form it did. Obviously, the speeding scandal would have caught up with him and it would have been hugely embarrassing for the party.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    edited May 2020

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thanks to box sets, home-schooling parents don't need history teachers!

    Oi!

    Edit - although your other three have some merit, Blackadder was not particularly historically accurate. It owed more to Alan Clark’s novel than any realistic appraisal of the facts of life in the Great War.

    It is very, very funny though.
    That book - is it Lions and Donkeys? It was before my time. That's the Tory pol isn't it? If so, why did Clark did he adopt that approach? Just wondering ...
    Yes, and see also the musical Oh What a Lovely War based on it. There is a great deal of truth in the lions led by donkeys caricature, especially early on in the trenches, and the war poets added to this. More recently the focus has shifted to the later stages, when innovative equipment and tactics (often led by colonial armies) swept us to victory.

    You could do worse than watch Churchill's First World War, most of which can be seen online at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3htrrp

    Many thanks for that recommendation - had not occurred to me. I've got a rather mixed selection of books but am only really beginning to grasp the overall picture along the lines you state. I was very interested to discover Dunn's The War the Infantry Knew - quite a contrast with the OWALW.

    My grandfather was a Lewis* (presumably) gunner in the Somme - I found his medals including the 1914-15 Star after a recent death in the family. He survived
    the war ...

    * On the assumption that that was the only, or commonest, MG in a Scottish infantry battalion, and that Vickers were in separate battalions. But maybe someone on PB Knows.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688
    edited May 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    Tax harms the economy and cuts growth. Why put it up?
    Not immediately. Like I said, the economy needs to recover. Tax cuts, if anything, in the short term.
    Given how interest rates have been cut there will be many people thinking they should spend more of their savings.

    Especially if they are having new thoughts about their own mortality.

    Any tax cuts should be on employment taxes.
    It's by no means out of the question that rates on savings could go negative for a period.
    In real terms, taking into account inflation, they may have already.
    I'd say they have (for FSCS protected). But if they go actually negative I predict much ado and confusion. "Pay the bank to hold MY money? You're having a larf."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris Huhne being re-elected right now. Increased majority.

    Really funny in retrospect. There was no point to his career. Unlike his licence...

    What would it have been like had he beaten Clegg in the leadership contest?

    Short answer, I don't think the Coalition would have happened in the form it did. Obviously, the speeding scandal would have caught up with him
    Boom boom!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,456
    edited May 2020
    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    Tax harms the economy and cuts growth. Why put it up?
    Not immediately. Like I said, the economy needs to recover. Tax cuts, if anything, in the short term.
    Given how interest rates have been cut there will be many people thinking they should spend more of their savings.

    Especially if they are having new thoughts about their own mortality.

    Any tax cuts should be on employment taxes.
    It's by no means out of the question that rates on savings could go negative for a period.
    In real terms, taking into account inflation, they may have already.

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    Tax harms the economy and cuts growth. Why put it up?
    Not immediately. Like I said, the economy needs to recover. Tax cuts, if anything, in the short term.
    Given how interest rates have been cut there will be many people thinking they should spend more of their savings.

    Especially if they are having new thoughts about their own mortality.

    Any tax cuts should be on employment taxes.
    It's by no means out of the question that rates on savings could go negative for a period.
    In real terms, taking into account inflation, they may have already.
    I'd say they have (for FSCS protected). But if they go actually negative I predict much ado and confusion. "Pay the bank to hold MY money? You're having a larf."
    Yet people pay for storage units uncomplainingly.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    kinabalu said:

    RobD said:

    coach said:

    That's a good write up.

    As somebody who hasn't voted since 2015 other than in the Euro ref I'm ambivalent about both main parties, but did find the inevitable defenestration of Corbyn quite amusing.

    Starmer seems a decent bloke but he's far too bland for the current audience, there's a reason why Mrs May lasted 5 minutes. For all the bile chucked at them on twitter the likes of Boris, Trump and Farage make people sit up, Starmer doesn't.

    Not just the blandness, but after the pink buses, t-shirts etc the party ended up with a white, stale, male.
    Labour might get their first woman leader 50 years after Thatcher became leader of the Tories.

    Might.
    It's amazing for a so called progressive party, no female or BAME leader, I guess it just confirms the dearth of talent in the current Labour party.
    Or it could be that we do not need to try so hard to prove our credentials on this, since they are universally accepted.

    A sort of reverse Nixon Goes To China, if you will. By which I don't mean China goes to Nixon. Just that Labour not needing a female leader as badly as other parties is essentially the same but the very opposite of a Republican president being more able to go to communist China than a Democrat.
    That must be why they don't feel the need for all women short lists then......

    Mind you considering even then I guy can be given one of those seats says it all doesn't it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,642


    Broxtowe.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,445
    Just watching poor old Nick Palmer lose by a whisker in Broxtowe.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,885
    edited May 2020
    Result from Broxtowe on BBC Parliament Channel.

    Con 20585
    Lab 20196

    I would have preferred a Labour hold in this particular seat.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688
    edited May 2020

    He looks like a dud to me. Of course, that might not matter.

    Now to be clear -

    Does not matter that he is a dud?

    Or does not matter that you think he is a dud?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885
    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    What's everyone reading during lockdown ? I am not a great fiction reader but read some non fiction in the last 7 weeks including

    The Games - David Goldblatt (history of the Olympics)
    The Crucibles greatest matches -Hector Nunns (I love snooker and any "pub" game)
    Who dares wins -Dominic Sandbrook (Britain 1979-1982)
    The medal factory - About British Cycling and its recent triumphs and tribulations.
    A better betting with a decent fellow - A social history of Bookmaking
    A short history of Europe - Simon Jenkins
    A short history of London -Simon Jenkins
    Ghosts at the table - a history of poker
    Airhead -Emily Maitlis

    Quite proud of myself even if all on my sort of hobbies!

    Just finished The Korean War , moving on to the Kremlin Letters
    Hello Malky, just finished TKW myself by coincidence - the Hastings book I take it?
    Hi Carnyx, Yes indeed, very good it was too. After Kremlin Letters < I have Das Reich:March of the 2nd SS Panzer Division and Churchill
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    kinabalu said:

    He looks like a dud to me. Of course, that might not matter.

    Now to be clear -

    Does not matter that he is a dud?

    Or does not matter that you think he is a dud?
    I meant the first but the second is obviously true too.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    Interesting jobs report from the US

    unemployment rate rocketed to 14.7% from 4.4%

    Almost 20m jobs lost

    At the same time, wages jumped month on month by more than 4.5%.

    almost 8% year on year.

    Looks like that while blue collar workers are getting discharged, lack of immigration and travel is leading to a search for expertise higher up the skills ladder.

    No this just shows the problem with using averages. Cut off the bottom and the average goes up even if nobody has gained. Add to the top and the average goes down even if nobody has lost.

    I very much doubt there's been a spike in wages higher up the ladder but slashing tens of millions of largely minimum wage jobs will see average wages go up.
    How much cleverer you are than the expert economists who did not did not see this coming, and how lucky we are to have you

    Their average estimate for month on month wages increases was 0.4%. Actual increase 4.7%.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885
    edited May 2020
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Excellent header.

    For me the other huge issue for Sir Kenneth is how effectively he will clean house, but that will probably require the EHCR Report to come out first for him to have the authority to do the clearance, rather than causing a civil war.

    Do you mean Sir Keir, or are you expecting him to be a Starr?

    Interesting as well that two of the three largest national parties are led by knights.
    Four largest, surely? depending on what 'national' means.
    If the SNP were a national instead of nationalist party, Sturgeon would be PM right now.
    Actually, my point stands - the LDs aren't a national party either, and nor are Labour, if we apply your criteria, as they don't stand in all four nations of the UK.
    A reasonable point, to which I would answer however that their association short of Union with the SDLP and Alliance parties makes them parties with at least a national outlook.

    And on a more pertinent point, the SNP don’t even pretend to aspire to national government. They are only interested in Scotland.
    So Scotland is not a Nation
    It is not a nation state, no.

    Nor is my own nation of Wales.
    Bollox I am afraid, unless you think same of England. Wales and NI I can understand.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,096
    edited May 2020



    Broxtowe.

    Travesty
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Excellent header.

    For me the other huge issue for Sir Kenneth is how effectively he will clean house, but that will probably require the EHCR Report to come out first for him to have the authority to do the clearance, rather than causing a civil war.

    Do you mean Sir Keir, or are you expecting him to be a Starr?

    Interesting as well that two of the three largest national parties are led by knights.
    Four largest, surely? depending on what 'national' means.
    If the SNP were a national instead of nationalist party, Sturgeon would be PM right now.
    Actually, my point stands - the LDs aren't a national party either, and nor are Labour, if we apply your criteria, as they don't stand in all four nations of the UK.
    A reasonable point, to which I would answer however that their association short of Union with the SDLP and Alliance parties makes them parties with at least a national outlook.

    And on a more pertinent point, the SNP don’t even pretend to aspire to national government. They are only interested in Scotland.
    So Scotland is not a Nation
    It is not a nation state, no.

    Nor is my own nation of Wales.
    Bollox I am afraid, unless you think same of England. Wales and NI I can understand.
    I don't even know what you're objecting about now. That it's not its own official nation-state was something I presumed you'd agree with, because you're very angry it is not and think it should be, as do many scots. England isn't it's own nation state either and some, though not as many, are angry about that.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,061
    ydoethur said:

    Just watching poor old Nick Palmer lose by a whisker in Broxtowe.

    Though that other PB stalwart has just managed to hold on in Witney.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,103
    Britons were 'terrorised' by the government's tough coronavirus message and 'lost sight' of the fact most people only have mild illness, says SAGE adviser

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8300139/Expert-Britons-terrorised-governments-tough-coronavirus-message.html

    The problem is they started off with this softly softly message and people just packed into pubs, went to concerts, etc.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,061
    Funny to hear so many references to 'strong and stable government'. Seems to have rather gone out of fashion in recent years for some reason ...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,164
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    On Topic I think Labour will do better than 2019 but unlikely to match the % of vote achieved in 2017.

    I would be very happy if they do better than that minimum success target

    If we lose again - which we won't - we would need to have a long hard think about what the party is for.
    How do you define lose?

    What would be success?
    I suppose in the same way. Who goes to number 10. Labour PM to me will be a success. Tory PM is failure.
    Massive ask then
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885
    kle4 said:



    Broxtowe.

    Travesty
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Excellent header.

    For me the other huge issue for Sir Kenneth is how effectively he will clean house, but that will probably require the EHCR Report to come out first for him to have the authority to do the clearance, rather than causing a civil war.

    Do you mean Sir Keir, or are you expecting him to be a Starr?

    Interesting as well that two of the three largest national parties are led by knights.
    Four largest, surely? depending on what 'national' means.
    If the SNP were a national instead of nationalist party, Sturgeon would be PM right now.
    Actually, my point stands - the LDs aren't a national party either, and nor are Labour, if we apply your criteria, as they don't stand in all four nations of the UK.
    A reasonable point, to which I would answer however that their association short of Union with the SDLP and Alliance parties makes them parties with at least a national outlook.

    And on a more pertinent point, the SNP don’t even pretend to aspire to national government. They are only interested in Scotland.
    So Scotland is not a Nation
    It is not a nation state, no.

    Nor is my own nation of Wales.
    Bollox I am afraid, unless you think same of England. Wales and NI I can understand.
    I don't even know what you're objecting about now. That it's not its own official nation-state was something I presumed you'd agree with, because you're very angry it is not and think it should be, as do many scots. England isn't it's own nation state either and some, though not as many, are angry about that.
    I count both as separate but once is enslaved as a colony by the larger one.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thanks to box sets, home-schooling parents don't need history teachers!

    Oi!

    Edit - although your other three have some merit, Blackadder was not particularly historically accurate. It owed more to Alan Clark’s novel than any realistic appraisal of the facts of life in the Great War.

    It is very, very funny though.
    That book - is it Lions and Donkeys? It was before my time. That's the Tory pol isn't it? If so, why did Clark did he adopt that approach? Just wondering ...
    Yes, and see also the musical Oh What a Lovely War based on it. There is a great deal of truth in the lions led by donkeys caricature, especially early on in the trenches, and the war poets added to this. More recently the focus has shifted to the later stages, when innovative equipment and tactics (often led by colonial armies) swept us to victory.

    You could do worse than watch Churchill's First World War, most of which can be seen online at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3htrrp

    Many thanks for that recommendation - had not occurred to me. I've got a rather mixed selection of books but am only really beginning to grasp the overall picture along the lines you state. I was very interested to discover Dunn's The War the Infantry Knew - quite a contrast with the OWALW.

    My grandfather was a Lewis* (presumably) gunner in the Somme - I found his medals including the 1914-15 Star after a recent death in the family. He survived
    the war ...

    * On the assumption that that was the only, or commonest, MG in a Scottish infantry battalion, and that Vickers were in separate battalions. But maybe someone on PB Knows.
    Of course, with regard to the First World War, we forget that the British Army had learned a great deal from its failings in the Boer War. As Kipling wrote:
    Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should,
    We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,984
    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Comrade...you obviously hold yourself in high esteem if you think a QC of the year and Head of the CPS is mildly competent....and he got there from nowhere....you obviously have superhuman powers of intellect to judge so harshly...

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,885
    edited May 2020

    ydoethur said:

    Just watching poor old Nick Palmer lose by a whisker in Broxtowe.

    Though that other PB stalwart has just managed to hold on in Witney.
    Did Cameron post on the site?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    edited May 2020
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    What's everyone reading during lockdown ? I am not a great fiction reader but read some non fiction in the last 7 weeks including

    The Games - David Goldblatt (history of the Olympics)
    The Crucibles greatest matches -Hector Nunns (I love snooker and any "pub" game)
    Who dares wins -Dominic Sandbrook (Britain 1979-1982)
    The medal factory - About British Cycling and its recent triumphs and tribulations.
    A better betting with a decent fellow - A social history of Bookmaking
    A short history of Europe - Simon Jenkins
    A short history of London -Simon Jenkins
    Ghosts at the table - a history of poker
    Airhead -Emily Maitlis

    Quite proud of myself even if all on my sort of hobbies!

    Just finished The Korean War , moving on to the Kremlin Letters
    Hello Malky, just finished TKW myself by coincidence - the Hastings book I take it?
    Hi Carnyx, Yes indeed, very good it was too. After Kremlin Letters < I have Das Reich:March of the 2nd SS Panzer Division and Churchill
    Yes, I thought it rather good - very competently written and, for you and me anyway, with a nice attention to the UK forces (including, briefly, my father!). Now on several 'alternative outcomes to WW2 etc' anthologies (simply because it's that part of my bookcase) or Hilary Mantel's Cromwell trilogy according to mood - got vol 3 before lockdown so am startting again with vol 1.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,688

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    On Topic I think Labour will do better than 2019 but unlikely to match the % of vote achieved in 2017.

    I would be very happy if they do better than that minimum success target

    If we lose again - which we won't - we would need to have a long hard think about what the party is for.
    How do you define lose?

    What would be success?
    I suppose in the same way. Who goes to number 10. Labour PM to me will be a success. Tory PM is failure.
    Massive ask then
    Only 2.4 on Betfair for largest party.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,456

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    Tax harms the economy and cuts growth. Why put it up?
    Not immediately. Like I said, the economy needs to recover. Tax cuts, if anything, in the short term.
    Given how interest rates have been cut there will be many people thinking they should spend more of their savings.

    Especially if they are having new thoughts about their own mortality.

    Any tax cuts should be on employment taxes.
    It's by no means out of the question that rates on savings could go negative for a period.
    In real terms, taking into account inflation, they may have already.

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

    Tax harms the economy and cuts growth. Why put it up?
    Not immediately. Like I said, the economy needs to recover. Tax cuts, if anything, in the short term.
    Given how interest rates have been cut there will be many people thinking they should spend more of their savings.

    Especially if they are having new thoughts about their own mortality.

    Any tax cuts should be on employment taxes.
    It's by no means out of the question that rates on savings could go negative for a period.
    In real terms, taking into account inflation, they may have already.
    I'd say they have (for FSCS protected). But if they go actually negative I predict much ado and confusion. "Pay the bank to hold MY money? You're having a larf."
    Yet people pay for storage units uncomplainingly.
    If I store furniture people don't generally get the use of it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thanks to box sets, home-schooling parents don't need history teachers!

    Oi!

    Edit - although your other three have some merit, Blackadder was not particularly historically accurate. It owed more to Alan Clark’s novel than any realistic appraisal of the facts of life in the Great War.

    It is very, very funny though.
    That book - is it Lions and Donkeys? It was before my time. That's the Tory pol isn't it? If so, why did Clark did he adopt that approach? Just wondering ...
    Yes, and see also the musical Oh What a Lovely War based on it. There is a great deal of truth in the lions led by donkeys caricature, especially early on in the trenches, and the war poets added to this. More recently the focus has shifted to the later stages, when innovative equipment and tactics (often led by colonial armies) swept us to victory.

    You could do worse than watch Churchill's First World War, most of which can be seen online at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3htrrp

    Many thanks for that recommendation - had not occurred to me. I've got a rather mixed selection of books but am only really beginning to grasp the overall picture along the lines you state. I was very interested to discover Dunn's The War the Infantry Knew - quite a contrast with the OWALW.

    My grandfather was a Lewis* (presumably) gunner in the Somme - I found his medals including the 1914-15 Star after a recent death in the family. He survived
    the war ...

    * On the assumption that that was the only, or commonest, MG in a Scottish infantry battalion, and that Vickers were in separate battalions. But maybe someone on PB Knows.
    Of course, with regard to the First World War, we forget that the British Army had learned a great deal from its failings in the Boer War. As Kipling wrote:
    Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should,
    We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.
    Nice quote! That is obviously the Haldane Reforms you mean - not that I know a lot: much more familiar with Fisher myself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    edited May 2020

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

    Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    kinabalu said:

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.
    Yes, a feat dismissed too readily by his detractors
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,987
    Churchill's victory speech now playing on BBC1
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    HYUFD said:

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

    Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019
    Also worth noting that the population of the UK grew by 7.6 million in the twenty years between Blair I and Corbyn I. This exceeds the current combined total for the whole of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited May 2020
    My favourite moment from the 2010 election. Big Bad Al spinning like a top, while Adam Boulton blows his.

    https://youtu.be/8DnQcO17uYY
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,362
    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?
    Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,787
    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?
    Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.
    Liberal Democrat
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kinabalu said:

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.
    Now repeat the same stat for their opposite numbers.

    Gaining votes isn't impressive if for every vote you win you drive two more for your opponents.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,655
    malcolmg said:

    What's everyone reading during lockdown ? I am not a great fiction reader but read some non fiction in the last 7 weeks including

    The Games - David Goldblatt (history of the Olympics)
    The Crucibles greatest matches -Hector Nunns (I love snooker and any "pub" game)
    Who dares wins -Dominic Sandbrook (Britain 1979-1982)
    The medal factory - About British Cycling and its recent triumphs and tribulations.
    A better betting with a decent fellow - A social history of Bookmaking
    A short history of Europe - Simon Jenkins
    A short history of London -Simon Jenkins
    Ghosts at the table - a history of poker
    Airhead -Emily Maitlis

    Quite proud of myself even if all on my sort of hobbies!

    Just finished The Korean War , moving on to the Kremlin Letters
    Not much into non-fiction, so mine have been The Gameshouse (interesting for gamers, written in eerie OTT style), Invisible Armies (Jon Evans - engrossing but not as good as his amazing hitchhiker thriller Trail of the Dead) and re-reading Fire Upon the Deep (still IMO the best space opera ever). Meanwhile played the entertaining minigame Reigns (costs about £2, simply a lot of choices for you as absolute monarch until you die and start again as your heir) and the classic D&D game Darkest Dungeon, plus various online games with remote opponents.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,941



    And then there is the financial and economic aftermath...

    Yes, it would be most convenient if Labour can exploit the aftermath of a pandemic to take power. Hard to see them doing it any other way.
    I wasn't for one moment suggesting that the Labour Party should exploit anything to do with the pandemic. Circumstances will prevail and if the government will be blamed and presumably Labour will be net beneficiaries without doing anything.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?
    Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.
    So what you're saying is that there are naturally more Tory than Labour voters but Labour can win if they lull Tories into wasting their votes?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,362

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?
    Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.
    So what you're saying is that there are naturally more Tory than Labour voters but Labour can win if they lull Tories into wasting their votes?
    Or that there is a chunk of naturally liberal voters that the system forces into backing the Tories when the prospect of majority Labour power is particularly frightening.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,655

    ydoethur said:

    Just watching poor old Nick Palmer lose by a whisker in Broxtowe.

    Though that other PB stalwart has just managed to hold on in Witney.
    I thought we'd get thumped on the national swing so was pleased to only lose by a whisker - there really was a decent personal vote in there, I think.

    Oddly, it was probably best for my personal career, as I was able to swiftly move into animal welfare charity management, which I've been doing ever since - 5 years later and older, I suspect it would have been harder. But I still miss Parliament and would go back in a heartbeat if I could.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.
    Yes, a feat dismissed too readily by his detractors
    I don't think anyone denies that Corbyn did well at attracting fanatical support by some.

    His problem is everyone else went to the Tories in horror.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,469
    edited May 2020

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?
    Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.
    So what you're saying is that there are naturally more Tory than Labour voters but Labour can win if they lull Tories into wasting their votes?
    Yes, there are far more conservatives than collectivists.

    Hiwevewr, many liberals "incorrectly" vote Conservative, just as many conservatives have "incorrectly" voted Labour for many many years.

    Even the election-winning machine Blair was always aware that the country is largely conservative, ideologically, as accordingly never took anything for granted at election time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?
    Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.
    So what you're saying is that there are naturally more Tory than Labour voters but Labour can win if they lull Tories into wasting their votes?
    Or that there is a chunk of naturally liberal voters that the system forces into backing the Tories when the prospect of majority Labour power is particularly frightening.
    Yes the system lets people make a choice - and when Labour is frightening they make it. In vast numbers.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,164
    HYUFD said:

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

    Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019
    Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

    Do the 2017 numbers support that view?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,862
    Anecdata

    Lockdown seems to be breaking down this weekend. Three unsolicited visitors today, just popping round. There is a little VE BBQ down the road. Son has been invited to go round to someone’s house. 🤷‍♂️
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,862

    HYUFD said:

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

    Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019
    Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

    Do the 2017 numbers support that view?
    How many seats did he win in 2019?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,507

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thanks to box sets, home-schooling parents don't need history teachers!

    Oi!

    Edit - although your other three have some merit, Blackadder was not particularly historically accurate. It owed more to Alan Clark’s novel than any realistic appraisal of the facts of life in the Great War.

    It is very, very funny though.
    That book - is it Lions and Donkeys? It was before my time. That's the Tory pol isn't it? If so, why did Clark did he adopt that approach? Just wondering ...
    Yes, and see also the musical Oh What a Lovely War based on it. There is a great deal of truth in the lions led by donkeys caricature, especially early on in the trenches, and the war poets added to this. More recently the focus has shifted to the later stages, when innovative equipment and tactics (often led by colonial armies) swept us to victory.

    You could do worse than watch Churchill's First World War, most of which can be seen online at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3htrrp

    Many thanks for that recommendation - had not occurred to me. I've got a rather mixed selection of books but am only really beginning to grasp the overall picture along the lines you state. I was very interested to discover Dunn's The War the Infantry Knew - quite a contrast with the OWALW.

    My grandfather was a Lewis* (presumably) gunner in the Somme - I found his medals including the 1914-15 Star after a recent death in the family. He survived
    the war ...

    * On the assumption that that was the only, or commonest, MG in a Scottish infantry battalion, and that Vickers were in separate battalions. But maybe someone on PB Knows.
    Of course, with regard to the First World War, we forget that the British Army had learned a great deal from its failings in the Boer War. As Kipling wrote:
    Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should,
    We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.
    The British, on the one hand, and the Germans/French, on the other, derived two completely opposite lessons from the Boer (and Russo-Japanese) wars.

    The British learned that good marksmanship, and massed defensive rifle fire, could be deadly. The Germans/French learned that if you were willing to take sufficient casualties, you could overwhelm the defenders if you had sufficient superiority in numbers. That's why French and German casualty rates were horrific in the first four months of WWI.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Stocky said:

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

    This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

    I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

    Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?
    Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.
    So what you're saying is that there are naturally more Tory than Labour voters but Labour can win if they lull Tories into wasting their votes?
    Yes, there are far more conservatives than collectivists.

    Hiwevewr, many liberals "incorrectly" vote Conservative, just as many conservatives have "incorrectly" voted Labour for many many years.

    Even the election-winning machine Blair was always aware that the country is largely conservative, ideologically, as accordingly never took anything for granted at election time.
    There's nothing incorrect about it. We liberals can vote Tory because the Tories are the most liberal government on offer.

    If the opposite numbers are particularly scary then making an educated choice on which government you want and not putting it in the hands of minor parties to settle themselves after the election is entirely appropriate.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Jonathan said:

    Anecdata

    Lockdown seems to be breaking down this weekend. Three unsolicited visitors today, just popping round. There is a little VE BBQ down the road. Son has been invited to go round to someone’s house. 🤷‍♂️

    Concurs with my observation of apparently much increased road traffic today. I imagine that rather a lot of visits to family and friends will be taking place over the BH weekend.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,941
    kle4 said:


    An excellent analysis by Southam.

    This is a moment in time to be in opposition rather than in government. During this chaotic time governments will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

    The recriminations over late lockdown, not unlocking early enough, unlocking too early, too little, too late testing, massaged testing figures, too little PPE, care homes, staff duty of care, all fall at the door of government. Now they may have been inch perfect in their execution of pandemic policy (they haven't) they will still incurr the wrath of the public when the post-pandemic. And then there is the financial and economic aftermath...

    Good post. Interesting to see how SKS plays it.
    Either by accident or design, Starmer's low key response, broadly supportive of government but incisively critical on specifics, is the sensible route to take.

    However Starmer will not 'win' the next election, that is not to say Boris/the Conservatives might/probably will 'lose' it!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,642
    Jonathan said:

    Anecdata

    Lockdown seems to be breaking down this weekend. Three unsolicited visitors today, just popping round. There is a little VE BBQ down the road. Son has been invited to go round to someone’s house. 🤷‍♂️

    Told you. Well, not you. But everyone.

    This Government followed public opinion into the lockdown (late) and will follow it out of it as well (late).

    I will be doing my own act of rebellion against it tomorrow. It’s horseshit.

    What will happen is the rozzers will make headline news in overreacting to very minor infractions this weekend that are on the way out in 60 hours anyway, and the press furore from that will embarrass the Government into action.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,001
    I see Fearless Truth Teller Alistair Haimes has blocked me for pointing out he was using lagged Swedish data to pretend there was a rapid fall in deaths. All it took was posting todays graph after he had posted yesterdays and pointing out 4 days had had their numbers revised up completely eliminating the fall.

    Absolutely shameless wanker.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    HYUFD said:

    Back on Topic

    Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

    2001 Blair 10,724,952

    2005 Blair 9,552,436

    2010 Brown 8,609,526

    2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

    2017 Jezza 12,868,460

    2019 Jezza 10,269,051

    Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

    Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

    EICIPM 5th

    Gordy 6th

    Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

    Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

    Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019
    Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

    Do the 2017 numbers support that view?
    Almost. 2019 does.
This discussion has been closed.