Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump: Pardon Me

13

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,236
    kinabalu said:

    I will definitely see it one day. Think I'm bound to like it.
    Mind you, the attempt at socialism-using-perfect-foresight fails.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107

    If De Niro had drunk some turnip juice, before maniacally laughing - he'd have been Malcolm's hero....
    :D
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,644

    I thought Deutsche Bank was more likely to need the money.
    Checked the price of oil lately?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,570
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Just watched a Trump supporter express the opinion that Biden is a kind of trojan horse moderate candidate who will be diagnosed incapable after a year and replaced with a much more radical VEEP.

    Tin foil hat stuff for now, or course, but it does make the choice of Democrat VEEP even more interesting. The repubs could use this line of attack, depending on who it is.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Scott_xP said:
    Re-tweeting Angela Rayner. How are the mighty fallen
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 31,336

    Is don't know still high for Starmer or is at more normal levels these days?
    Pay attention to this poll in around 12 months time. If the gap hasn't closed markedly Starmer is in trouble.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,580
    HYUFD said:

    Epping just come up as a Con gain, back when it included Harlow and was a marginal I believe.

    1970; the first election where I 'participated' in the sense of being a counting agent, rather than 'just' voting.... although I'd done some campaigning in '66.
    On the same table the Lab agent was, in life, a pharmaceutical rep who called on me. He had a pocket radio and an earpiece, and kept us up to date, with a sort of gallows humour.
    IIRC the Tory was a miserable git.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,688
    malcolmg said:

    Overpaid as well, De Niro has morphed into an idiot. Unless he is playing himself he is useless, a one trick pony and never liked the look of Walken, he looked a wrong un.
    PS: no prisoners today , just the truth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCDIYvFmgW8
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,818
    malcolmg said:

    Overpaid as well, De Niro has morphed into an idiot. Unless he is playing himself he is useless, a one trick pony and never liked the look of Walken, he looked a wrong un.
    PS: no prisoners today , just the truth
    C'mon. De Niro is a giant of the cinema. Mean Streets to Meet The Parents - talk about a journey!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,818

    Mind you, the attempt at socialism-using-perfect-foresight fails.
    Oh so it has a socialism feel to it too - I really must watch this film.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,680
    edited June 2020
    Starting on the 1970 Election.

    Interesting that they think the Tories won Salford because of houses being built / upgraded.

    And an Asian interviewee praising Wedgwood Benn for standing up against what I think was the racialist tone of the Lab government.

    Then a review of the attiudes of the NZ / OZ governments.

    Interesting times.

    And to Enoch Powell ... "will you continue your alliance with the far Left - people like Michael Foot". Then Powell mugging the interviewer.

    I think that was all correct. Will check though.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited June 2020
    A minor point of correction - Trump has four and a half months to turn it around - rather than five and a half!
    Edit - already spotted I notice!
  • If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.

    The Corbyn approach was to see them as essentially a party of the left that needed to be crushed by constantly pointing to the "evils" of the Coalition and calling them Tories. You can see the logic but, in practice, about as many ex-Lib Dems responded by voting for the real Tories as by voting Labour. This was broadly a wash in Tory/Labour seats, and a straightforward gift to the Tories in seats where Labour weren't a factor.

    Probably the better model is Blair/Ashdown. Blair had no compunction about going toe to toe in by-elections (Labour absolutely did not go easy in the Eastleigh and Littleborough & Saddleworth by-elections when Blair was a new leader trying to prove himself). But, ultimately, he correctly saw it as useful to have a centrist Lib Dems (i.e. not nibbling too much at his left fringe) as they'd soak up disgruntled Tories and pin Conservative resources down in quite a few seats.

    Blair also realised the personal relationship was important. In a closer election, the Lib Dems' 46 MPs in 1997 would have been helpful for him. As it turns out, he simply didn't need them. But his relationship with Ashdown was such that the safety net was there for Blair had that election campaign gone poorly for Labour. Contrast the relationships between Clegg, Cameron, and Brown/the Brownites. I don't think the maths could have worked anyway in 2010 but there's no question that Clegg was vastly more personally comfortable with Cameron than Brown (who never believed in cultivating the relationship at all).
    The problem is that the Lib Dems going left doesn't seem to help them win the marginals from the Tories they need to win, it means they take more Labour voters which doesn't help.

    Your analysis is spot on in terms of what they should do - but their approach is not going to result in that, I don't think.

    It does seem to be historically true that a Labour Party people aren't scared of, results in a better Lib Dem performance.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,859
    justin124 said:

    A minor point of correction - Trump has four and a half months to turn it around - rather than five and a half!
    Edit - already spotted I notice!

    A possible campaign line:

    "I've done a big, beautiful deal with the United Kingdom. Probably the best trade deal that's ever been done. Some people are saying it's the greatest."
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,333
    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder what the low cost alternative is going to be? An A-Z sellotaped to a Nokia?
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    Checked the price of oil lately?
    All he has to do is move to the UK, become a Tory donor and he's safe from HMRC and probably even the IRS. Private Eye has endless stories of special treatment for party donors.
  • Labour report is interesting.

    They lost 1.8m voters who sat at home, I wonder what difference this would have made to the result, of course we don't know where these voters were placed
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572
    Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what the low cost alternative is going to be? An A-Z sellotaped to a Nokia?
    Don’t be ridiculous.

    Nokias are made in the EU.

    It would have to be a Samsung.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,035
    kinabalu said:

    I think there will be shy Trump voters because the intention to vote for him is far more of a "guilty secret" than it would have been in 2016. People voting for him this time are doing it despite 4 years of hard evidence of what he is.

    However, I think he will lose a big chunk of those who went with him in 2016 on an "Ok, what the hell, give him a shot" basis, which will swamp everything and drive the result. And given he just scraped it last time with a freakshly efficient EC distribution, to me it is all pointing to a very clear Biden win in Nov.
    Trump was very fortunate indeed that the votes fell where they did in order to win the EC whilst losing by 3 million votes overall. I still think that could happen again and the statue stuff is playing into his hands as it is for Johnson in the UK. Will they never learn???

    On the other hand I cannot imagine there will be hardly anyone voting for Trump in 2020 who didn't vote for him in 2016 but there will be plenty who did vote for him in 2016 who will not do so this time.

    Still a long way to go on this one, I'm keeping the champagne on ice for the time being.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,354
    Has this government just reached the point of throwing out random statements and hoping that they'll come to pass?

    https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1274305754464489474?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572

    Labour report is interesting.

    They lost 1.8m voters who sat at home, I wonder what difference this would have made to the result, of course we don't know where these voters were placed

    If they had all voted Tory, it might have cost you another 60 seats.

    On a serious point, it looks as though there was considerable churn in the Red Wall - habitual non-voters voting Brexit and Tory, while habitual Labour voters stayed home. That might explain how turnout wasn’t significantly different and yet the vote shares changed so dramatically.

    A major irony of this, of course, is that Corbyn’s original strategy was to try and engage non-voters to vote Labour.

    An even bigger irony is how many people - including me - scoffed at this strategy, pointing out that by definition non-voters don’t vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572

    Has this government just reached the point of throwing out random statements and hoping that they'll come to pass?

    https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1274305754464489474?s=20

    What do you mean, reached? That was their entire election strategy!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.

    The Corbyn approach was to see them as essentially a party of the left that needed to be crushed by constantly pointing to the "evils" of the Coalition and calling them Tories. You can see the logic but, in practice, about as many ex-Lib Dems responded by voting for the real Tories as by voting Labour. This was broadly a wash in Tory/Labour seats, and a straightforward gift to the Tories in seats where Labour weren't a factor.

    Probably the better model is Blair/Ashdown. Blair had no compunction about going toe to toe in by-elections (Labour absolutely did not go easy in the Eastleigh and Littleborough & Saddleworth by-elections when Blair was a new leader trying to prove himself). But, ultimately, he correctly saw it as useful to have a centrist Lib Dems (i.e. not nibbling too much at his left fringe) as they'd soak up disgruntled Tories and pin Conservative resources down in quite a few seats.

    Blair also realised the personal relationship was important. In a closer election, the Lib Dems' 46 MPs in 1997 would have been helpful for him. As it turns out, he simply didn't need them. But his relationship with Ashdown was such that the safety net was there for Blair had that election campaign gone poorly for Labour. Contrast the relationships between Clegg, Cameron, and Brown/the Brownites. I don't think the maths could have worked anyway in 2010 but there's no question that Clegg was vastly more personally comfortable with Cameron than Brown (who never believed in cultivating the relationship at all).

    I'd note that the Lib Dems are highly unlikely to be at 1997 seat levels at the next election, and Starmer will be MORE interested in how the SNP relationship works. But they could plausibly be at the 20-25 level with a fair wind, and are probably an easier partner than the SNP.
    Starmer needs to find a way to neutralise the SNP issue in the minds of floating voters.

    Depending on what the polls look like nearer the time, his strategy might need to be something like a revival of the Lib/Lab pact, either standing aside or fielding only paper candidates in seats where the LDs are the only party that can unseat Con incumbents. That’s going to be difficult to get past his own party, but it might be the only chance he has of being able to disavow an SNP coalition during the campaign.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,333
    ydoethur said:

    Don’t be ridiculous.

    Nokias are made in the EU.

    It would have to be a Samsung.
    I have just read in the Guardian that government plants to buy the offal left over from the bankruptcy of OneWeb (who were some sort of ebay Starlink apparently) and move production of the satellites to the UK (probably Hartlepool). Nothing at all can possibly go wrong with this scheme.
  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737

    If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.

    The Corbyn approach was to see them as essentially a party of the left that needed to be crushed by constantly pointing to the "evils" of the Coalition and calling them Tories. You can see the logic but, in practice, about as many ex-Lib Dems responded by voting for the real Tories as by voting Labour. This was broadly a wash in Tory/Labour seats, and a straightforward gift to the Tories in seats where Labour weren't a factor.

    Probably the better model is Blair/Ashdown. Blair had no compunction about going toe to toe in by-elections (Labour absolutely did not go easy in the Eastleigh and Littleborough & Saddleworth by-elections when Blair was a new leader trying to prove himself). But, ultimately, he correctly saw it as useful to have a centrist Lib Dems (i.e. not nibbling too much at his left fringe) as they'd soak up disgruntled Tories and pin Conservative resources down in quite a few seats.

    Blair also realised the personal relationship was important. In a closer election, the Lib Dems' 46 MPs in 1997 would have been helpful for him. As it turns out, he simply didn't need them. But his relationship with Ashdown was such that the safety net was there for Blair had that election campaign gone poorly for Labour. Contrast the relationships between Clegg, Cameron, and Brown/the Brownites. I don't think the maths could have worked anyway in 2010 but there's no question that Clegg was vastly more personally comfortable with Cameron than Brown (who never believed in cultivating the relationship at all).

    I'd note that the Lib Dems are highly unlikely to be at 1997 seat levels at the next election, and Starmer will be MORE interested in how the SNP relationship works. But they could plausibly be at the 20-25 level with a fair wind, and are probably an easier partner than the SNP.
    Lib Dems probably aren't any threat to Labour anymore (they might even drop to third in Sheffield Hallam next time) so they should choose Davey and focus on all their southern marginals and near misses like Cheadle and hope Starmer soaks up the residual LD vote in Con-Lab maginals by default.

    If the Tories drop from 45% to 40% the Lib Dems could quite feasibly end up with 30 MPs next time if Davey is leader even though they are unlikely to get more than 10-15% of the vote nationally.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    edited June 2020
    justin124 said:

    A minor point of correction - Trump has four and a half months to turn it around - rather than five and a half!
    Edit - already spotted I notice!

    Yes it’s about 18 weeks I think
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572
    Dura_Ace said:

    I have just read in the Guardian that government plants to buy the offal left over from the bankruptcy of OneWeb (who were some sort of ebay Starlink apparently) and move production of the satellites to the UK (probably Hartlepool). Nothing at all can possibly go wrong with this scheme.
    They’re just going round and round.

    Pause.

    Ah, my coat...
  • ydoethur said:

    If they had all voted Tory, it might have cost you another 60 seats.

    On a serious point, it looks as though there was considerable churn in the Red Wall - habitual non-voters voting Brexit and Tory, while habitual Labour voters stayed home. That might explain how turnout wasn’t significantly different and yet the vote shares changed so dramatically.

    A major irony of this, of course, is that Corbyn’s original strategy was to try and engage non-voters to vote Labour.

    An even bigger irony is how many people - including me - scoffed at this strategy, pointing out that by definition non-voters don’t vote.
    Good post.

    His strategy was based on young people not voting. They don't vote, time to give up on energising them.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    OllyT said:

    Trump was very fortunate indeed that the votes fell where they did in order to win the EC whilst losing by 3 million votes overall. I still think that could happen again and the statue stuff is playing into his hands as it is for Johnson in the UK. Will they never learn???

    On the other hand I cannot imagine there will be hardly anyone voting for Trump in 2020 who didn't vote for him in 2016 but there will be plenty who did vote for him in 2016 who will not do so this time.

    Still a long way to go on this one, I'm keeping the champagne on ice for the time being.
    The “playing into his hands” narrative is instinctively compelling.

    But, there’s been no evidence for it. Indeed last time it was aired on here there was a notable swing to Biden.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,354
    Grayling appears to have the half-life radium-226. He could take a public dump on the Cenotaph and be revealed to have punched Vera Lynn yet still be popping up in various roles in Tory governments.

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1274297504276910087?s=20
  • Sandpit said:

    Starmer needs to find a way to neutralise the SNP issue in the minds of floating voters.

    Depending on what the polls look like nearer the time, his strategy might need to be something like a revival of the Lib/Lab pact, either standing aside or fielding only paper candidates in seats where the LDs are the only party that can unseat Con incumbents. That’s going to be difficult to get past his own party, but it might be the only chance he has of being able to disavow an SNP coalition during the campaign.
    His strategy needs to be opposing independence strongly.

    He needs to accept Scotland is lost for the time being and accept that he needs to win in England and Wales.

    If the result of that is the SNP do better anyway in Scotland then fine. Better those seats are SNP than Tory.

    It is the idea that he will work with the SNP, that will cause another Ed Miliband result.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Sandpit said:

    For some context, we are now roughly (within a week or two) at the halfway point between the Brexit referendum and the scheduled 2024 election. If a week is a long time in politics, four years is an eternity.
    Under the terms of the FTPA we have already passed that point. Unless that Act is repealed , the next election is due on May 2nd 2024. We are now as near to that date as 8th August 2016 - by which time Theresa May had already been PM for almost a month!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,680

    Labour report is interesting.

    They lost 1.8m voters who sat at home, I wonder what difference this would have made to the result, of course we don't know where these voters were placed

    Is this report official? How do they align with Sir K and the new leadership?

    AIUI it is a group around Ed Milliband, including such as LIsa Nandy.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620

    His strategy needs to be opposing independence strongly.

    He needs to accept Scotland is lost for the time being and accept that he needs to win in England and Wales.

    If the result of that is the SNP do better anyway in Scotland then fine. Better those seats are SNP than Tory.

    It is the idea that he will work with the SNP, that will cause another Ed Miliband result.
    In 2017 Labour in Scotland seems to have had a policy of encouraging people to vote Tory rather than SNP to keep the SNP out. Both Ian Murray and Kezia Dugdale expressed this view. I'm surprised they are still in the party!

    Of course that did not go too well. Whjat you suggest is at least rational!
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884

    Grayling appears to have the half-life radium-226. He could take a public dump on the Cenotaph and be revealed to have punched Vera Lynn yet still be popping up in various roles in Tory governments.

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1274297504276910087?s=20

    Has a hashtag dated as badly as #StopTheCoup?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,680
    1970 Election.

    LOL - journos blaming polls for journos getting it wrong ;-)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107
    kinabalu said:

    I will definitely see it one day. Think I'm bound to like it.
    Groundhog Day was pretty good film, not sure if it will have aged well but reckon it will.
  • MattW said:

    Is this report official? How do they align with Sir K and the new leadership?

    AIUI it is a group around Ed Milliband, including such as LIsa Nandy.
    I believe it's a group across the entire party, separate from the leadership.

    There's some nonsense in there but some decent analysis and polling that can be looked at.

    The 1.8m voters that sat at home who had voted in 2017 for Labour, are a good place to look. Presumably some of these will vote again now that Corbyn has disappeared.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    Epping just come up as a Con gain, back when it included Harlow and was a marginal I believe.

    Indeed - Norman Tebbit defeated Stan Newens.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,570
    LOL

    McKenzie talking on 1970 GE replay about the public demand to ban polling during elections.

  • Carnyx said:

    In 2017 Labour in Scotland seems to have had a policy of encouraging people to vote Tory rather than SNP to keep the SNP out. Both Ian Murray and Kezia Dugdale expressed this view. I'm surprised they are still in the party!

    Of course that did not go too well. Whjat you suggest is at least rational!
    For some reason in the 2017 election Labour got 7 seats in Scotland, not sure why that was. Presumably those seats can be won again.

    Labour needs to be far smarter about standing in seats, allocating resources. Fighting the Lib Dems, Greens and the SNP in actual seats is pointless when Labour can't win them.

    A progressive alliance with the Lib Dems might go down well - but any deals with the SNP will kill any support for Labour stone dead. Labour needs to make it clear it won't deal with the SNP (even if ultimately, they do).
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    MattW said:

    Starting on the 1970 Election.

    Interesting that they think the Tories won Salford because of houses being built / upgraded.

    And an Asian interviewee praising Wedgwood Benn for standing up against what I think was the racialist tone of the Lab government.

    Then a review of the attiudes of the NZ / OZ governments.

    Interesting times.

    And to Enoch Powell ... "will you continue your alliance with the far Left - people like Michael Foot". Then Powell mugging the interviewer.

    I think that was all correct. Will check though.

    They did not win Salford!
  • What I find very troubling is the revisionism that Corbyn didn't do terribly because he got more share of the vote than Brown.

    Except of course, Brown could feasibly have formed a Government, Corbyn had no chance and lost in a near landslide.

    People with these views, are best ignored.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.

    The Corbyn approach was to see them as essentially a party of the left that needed to be crushed by constantly pointing to the "evils" of the Coalition and calling them Tories. You can see the logic but, in practice, about as many ex-Lib Dems responded by voting for the real Tories as by voting Labour. This was broadly a wash in Tory/Labour seats, and a straightforward gift to the Tories in seats where Labour weren't a factor.

    Probably the better model is Blair/Ashdown. Blair had no compunction about going toe to toe in by-elections (Labour absolutely did not go easy in the Eastleigh and Littleborough & Saddleworth by-elections when Blair was a new leader trying to prove himself). But, ultimately, he correctly saw it as useful to have a centrist Lib Dems (i.e. not nibbling too much at his left fringe) as they'd soak up disgruntled Tories and pin Conservative resources down in quite a few seats.

    Blair also realised the personal relationship was important. In a closer election, the Lib Dems' 46 MPs in 1997 would have been helpful for him. As it turns out, he simply didn't need them. But his relationship with Ashdown was such that the safety net was there for Blair had that election campaign gone poorly for Labour. Contrast the relationships between Clegg, Cameron, and Brown/the Brownites. I don't think the maths could have worked anyway in 2010 but there's no question that Clegg was vastly more personally comfortable with Cameron than Brown (who never believed in cultivating the relationship at all).

    I'd note that the Lib Dems are highly unlikely to be at 1997 seat levels at the next election, and Starmer will be MORE interested in how the SNP relationship works. But they could plausibly be at the 20-25 level with a fair wind, and are probably an easier partner than the SNP.
    Not true of Littleborough & Saddleworth at the 1995 by election.Labour fought a good campaign and came in a strong second to the LDs - and went on to win the seat in 1997! Margaret Beckett was Acting Leader at the time of the 1994 Eastleigh by election - but again Labour ended up in second place.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    What I find very troubling is the revisionism that Corbyn didn't do terribly because he got more share of the vote than Brown.

    Except of course, Brown could feasibly have formed a Government, Corbyn had no chance and lost in a near landslide.

    People with these views, are best ignored.

    I'm not sure what they even hope to gain with such a stance. What does it benefit Corbyn or Corbynism to talk up its electoral successes, since it'll just make obtaining actual success even harder.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    LOL

    McKenzie talking on 1970 GE replay about the public demand to ban polling during elections.

    Brilliant. It would remove so much to talk about though, and no one wants that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Has a hashtag dated as badly as #StopTheCoup?
    That depends if any millennial cults are on twitter proclaiming the day of judgement/ascension etc through a hashtag.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572
    edited June 2020

    What I find very troubling is the revisionism that Corbyn didn't do terribly because he got more share of the vote than Brown.

    Except of course, Brown could feasibly have formed a Government, Corbyn had no chance and lost in a near landslide.

    People with these views, are best ignored.

    However you look at it, there is a definite difference between getting a pounding after 13 years in government after three years of major economic turmoil, and getting an absolute horse whipping after 10 years in opposition when the government has been struggling with a sluggish economy and anaemic public sector and looked as though it is about to implode due to personality clashes for months.

    And the comparison is not in favour of the latter.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I am not watching today's 1970 Broadcast , but in my view election results programmes were far better in those days. For the last 25 years or so , they have become much more of a chat show format and rather treated as entertainment.The serious solemn nature of the occasion has rather been lost - and no longer are viewers presented with every individual constituency result.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,859
    kle4 said:

    Brilliant. It would remove so much to talk about though, and no one wants that.
    You'd just need to produce statistics by other means. Perhaps a whole new science of electoral divination would develop.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572
    justin124 said:

    I am not watching today's 1970 Broadcast , but in my view election results programmes were far better in those days. For the last 25 years or so , they have become much more of a chat show format and rather treated as entertainment.The serious solemn nature of the occasion has rather been lost - and no longer are viewers presented with every individual constituency result.

    Do you remember the Menzies Campbell rap for the 2007 locals?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    You'd just need to produce statistics by other means. Perhaps a whole new science of electoral divination would develop.
    I only take note of divinations by prophetic octopi and the like.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    However you look at it, there is a definite difference between getting a pounding after 13 years in government after three years of major economic turmoil, and getting an absolute horse whipping after 10 years in opposition when the government has been struggling with a sluggish economy and anaemic public sector and looked as though it is about to implode due to personality clashes for months.

    And the comparison is not in favour of the latter.
    I don't disagree - though I suspect that were the election held now , Corbyn would do a fair bit better.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    Do you remember the Menzies Campbell rap for the 2007 locals?
    I don't actually.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    justin124 said:

    I don't disagree - though I suspect that were the election held now , Corbyn would do a fair bit better.
    That'll teach him to believe his own hype and give Boris what he wanted. He even had me fooled.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572
    justin124 said:

    I don't actually.
    Trigger warning:

    It’s embarrassing, cringeworthy, bloody awful and incredibly stupid.

    But it does rather tend to prove your point.
    https://youtu.be/Rh3UlZcRQrY
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    justin124 said:

    I am not watching today's 1970 Broadcast , but in my view election results programmes were far better in those days. For the last 25 years or so , they have become much more of a chat show format and rather treated as entertainment.The serious solemn nature of the occasion has rather been lost - and no longer are viewers presented with every individual constituency result.

    Doesn't seem that solemn, Robin Day laughing and having some very jovial chats with those being interviewed
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    kle4 said:

    That'll teach him to believe his own hype and give Boris what he wanted. He even had me fooled.
    With respect , he had no choice. As soon as the SNP and LDs indicated support for a December election - via a Bill to set aside the FTPA - Corbyn lost his veto.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    Trigger warning:

    It’s embarrassing, cringeworthy, bloody awful and incredibly stupid.

    But it does rather tend to prove your point.
    https://youtu.be/Rh3UlZcRQrY
    Oh dear - that was really awful.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107
    justin124 said:

    I am not watching today's 1970 Broadcast , but in my view election results programmes were far better in those days. For the last 25 years or so , they have become much more of a chat show format and rather treated as entertainment.The serious solemn nature of the occasion has rather been lost - and no longer are viewers presented with every individual constituency result.

    They are full of comedians nowadays so be hard to make it a serious programme.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    malcolmg said:

    Groundhog Day was pretty good film, not sure if it will have aged well but reckon it will.
    I saw it again recently. Holds up fine, in my opinion.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    HYUFD said:

    Doesn't seem that solemn, Robin Day laughing and having some very jovial chats with those being interviewed
    They are now interviewing voters and a young Simon Jenkins at a disco
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    malcolmg said:

    They are full of comedians nowadays so be hard to make it a serious programme.
    David Dimbleby interviewed Wilson on election night in 1970 and was still presenting elections on the BBC until Huw Edwards replaced him last year
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,859
    kle4 said:

    I only take note of divinations by prophetic octopi and the like.
    We'd need to drive the octopi around the country so they could produce a constituency-level prediction.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    David Dimbleby interviewed Wilson on election night in 1970 and was still presenting elections on the BBC until Huw Edwards replaced him last year
    He made his first appearance reporting from the Exeter count in 1964 when his father - Richard Dimbleby - was the anchor man. 1979 was his first year in that role himself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    edited June 2020
    justin124 said:

    He made his first appearance reporting from the Exeter count in 1964 when his father - Richard Dimbleby - was the anchor man. 1979 was his first year in that role himself.
    A young John Humphreys now on saying the low swing to the Tories in Lancashire may be as the Protestant working class did not turn out so much for the Tories
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Tempus fugit . Perhaps it is the downside of being blessed with a very good memory, but I do find it hard emotionally to get my mind to accept the reality that not a single MP elected in 1970 now sits in the House of Commons - indeed the vast majority have passed away.To me , it feels but a few years ago. It was my O level month.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,580
    justin124 said:

    Oh dear - that was really awful.
    Extra hard on Ming of course because as a result of all his athletics training his knees were in a very poor state.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,924

    I saw it again recently. Holds up fine, in my opinion.
    Its all a bit samey though
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,580
    edited June 2020
    justin124 said:

    Tempus fugit . Perhaps it is the downside of being blessed with a very good memory, but I do find it hard emotionally to get my mind to accept the reality that not a single MP elected in 1970 now sits in the House of Commons - indeed the vast majority have passed away.To me , it feels but a few years ago. It was my O level month.

    It's my elder son's 57th birthday shortly! I believe his company pension scheme allows him to retire at 60. That will make me feel old.
    Should, of course, I keep going for another three years.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,151
    malcolmg said:

    Groundhog Day was pretty good film, not sure if it will have aged well but reckon it will.

    The "digital" clock radio is probably the most dated reference
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,033

    What I find very troubling is the revisionism that Corbyn didn't do terribly because he got more share of the vote than Brown.

    Except of course, Brown could feasibly have formed a Government, Corbyn had no chance and lost in a near landslide.

    People with these views, are best ignored.

    "Brown could feasibly have formed a Government"
    I'd argue with 'feasibly', but accept 'theoretically'.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    "Brown could feasibly have formed a Government"
    I'd argue with 'feasibly', but accept 'theoretically'.
    Brown already had a Government and could have opted to remain in office for a further two weeks until defeated on the Queens Speech.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,033
    justin124 said:

    Brown already had a Government and could have opted to remain in office for a further two weeks until defeated on the Queens Speech.
    Does that count?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107
    justin124 said:

    Tempus fugit . Perhaps it is the downside of being blessed with a very good memory, but I do find it hard emotionally to get my mind to accept the reality that not a single MP elected in 1970 now sits in the House of Commons - indeed the vast majority have passed away.To me , it feels but a few years ago. It was my O level month.

    O levels, a blast from the past. No F passes in those days, it was straight pass or fail. I did mine in 1971, failed every prelim due to bone idleness and horses/drinking and they were not going to let me sit the O levels but I did a couple of weeks work just to show them and passed all 8 easily.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    A young Gyles Brandreth interviewed at the Oxford Union
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,580

    "Brown could feasibly have formed a Government"
    I'd argue with 'feasibly', but accept 'theoretically'.
    I wouldn't even put it that high; he'd have to get the DUP on-side to do it.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    justin124 said:

    Tempus fugit . Perhaps it is the downside of being blessed with a very good memory, but I do find it hard emotionally to get my mind to accept the reality that not a single MP elected in 1970 now sits in the House of Commons - indeed the vast majority have passed away.To me , it feels but a few years ago. It was my O level month.

    And mine
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    justin124 said:

    Tempus fugit . Perhaps it is the downside of being blessed with a very good memory, but I do find it hard emotionally to get my mind to accept the reality that not a single MP elected in 1970 now sits in the House of Commons - indeed the vast majority have passed away.To me , it feels but a few years ago. It was my O level month.

    I was five years old and I remember my parents discussing it the day after. As Tories they were pleasantly surprised by the result. It was, I think, the first time in my life that politics impinged on my consciousness.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    It's my elder son's 57th birthday shortly! I believe his company pension scheme allows him to retire at 60. That will make me feel old.
    Should, of course, I keep going for another three years.

    Same age as me. My birthday will be on 7 July. Unfortunately, I won’t be in a position to retire at 60.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,354
    malcolmg said:

    O levels, a blast from the past. No F passes in those days, it was straight pass or fail. I did mine in 1971, failed every prelim due to bone idleness and horses/drinking and they were not going to let me sit the O levels but I did a couple of weeks work just to show them and passed all 8 easily.
    You were on the bevvy and nags in 4th year? An early developer!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    malcolmg said:

    O levels, a blast from the past. No F passes in those days, it was straight pass or fail. I did mine in 1971, failed every prelim due to bone idleness and horses/drinking and they were not going to let me sit the O levels but I did a couple of weeks work just to show them and passed all 8 easily.
    My experience was very different. There were pass grades 1 - 6 - Grade 1 being a Distinction. Fail grades were 7 - 9. A few years later the pass grades became A - C with Fail grades of D and E. I believe GCSE grades have now reverted to 1-6 with grade 6 being a Distinction.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Same age as me. My birthday will be on 7 July. Unfortunately, I won’t be in a position to retire at 60.
    I will be 66 on 8 July.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,236
    NHS England data out -

    Headline - 71
    Last 7 days - 59
    Yesterday - 6

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    justin124 said:

    My experience was very different. There were pass grades 1 - 6 - Grade 1 being a Distinction. Fail grades were 7 - 9. A few years later the pass grades became A - C with Fail grades of D and E. I believe GCSE grades have now reverted to 1-6 with grade 6 being a Distinction.
    1-9. 9 is the top grade.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,820
    It's always heads I win, tails you lose when the likes of Hartley-Brewer opine on race issues. And I suspect she does not even realise it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,580
    justin124 said:

    My experience was very different. There were pass grades 1 - 6 - Grade 1 being a Distinction. Fail grades were 7 - 9. A few years later the pass grades became A - C with Fail grades of D and E. I believe GCSE grades have now reverted to 1-6 with grade 6 being a Distinction.
    IIRC from what my grandchildren tell me, 9 is top, although I believe one can get a 9*.

    I've got some grandchildren teaching for them and others taking them!
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    IIRC from what my grandchildren tell me, 9 is top, although I believe one can get a 9*.

    I've got some grandchildren teaching for them and others taking them!
    Don’t think so. 9 is an approximate equivalent to the old A*, though apparently a bit harder to get.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    HYUFD said:
    This is something of a relief to me. Since I am a racist regardless of what I believe or how I act, I guess that means I need do nothing.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,580

    Don’t think so. 9 is an approximate equivalent to the old A*, though apparently a bit harder to get.
    Seems to change with each grandchild who takes the exams! One did them 15 years ago, another 13, then there's a gap due to children not getting married until their late 30's so one did them last year, and is doing A levels next year, and two more are starting the two year run-up in September.
    What is the difference, do any of our educators know, between GCSE and IGCSE?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572

    Don’t think so. 9 is an approximate equivalent to the old A*, though apparently a bit harder to get.
    8 is the equivalent of A*. 9 is the grade above that, given to a small cohort within that 8 grade to indicate exceptional achievement.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    edited June 2020
    eadric said:

    Yes, this one from L'Oreal's lovely new consultant is especially liberating:

    “Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth, then we can talk.”

    No matter what I do I am part of the most violent and oppressive force on earth and always will be, because of my skin colour.

    So I might as well go out and be horribly violent and oppressive then, at least it will be fun.
    Well, I wouldn't recommend playing up to their racist opinions and I don't intend to change my behaviour, but they are quite clearly a racist and should be reacted to as such.

    Racists should be confronted whoever they are, even if they pretend they are anti-racism. Actions and words reveal the truth.
This discussion has been closed.