politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump: Pardon Me
Comments
-
Mind you, the attempt at socialism-using-perfect-foresight fails.kinabalu said:
I will definitely see it one day. Think I'm bound to like it.Malmesbury said:
Groundhog day is a bit saccharine in places - but part of it's genius is how the main character tries smart and dumb things. In a way that makes complete sense with the character and the environment he finds himself in.kinabalu said:
Right. That is more upbeat. Groundhog Day is a film high on my 'have not seen and really must' list. Top spot currently held by Blade Runner.kle4 said:
The thing about Groundhog day is in the end the cycle is broken as lessons were learned and everyone is happy, so it may not be a mood killer .kinabalu said:
Oh god that is a mood killer. Please may you be wrong. But seriously, yes of course it's possible. Really can't see it though. This is a bizarre experiment which has failed and I think enough truth can now be seen by enough people such that he is unelectable a 2nd time.Fishing said:I haven't actually seen the Deer Hunter, but am thinking that November might conceivably be more like another Pennsylvania-based movie - Groundhog Day.
0 -
Malmesbury said:
If De Niro had drunk some turnip juice, before maniacally laughing - he'd have been Malcolm's hero....kinabalu said:
De Niro and Walken are "poncy wankers" in that brutal russian roulette scene?malcolmg said:
YES FULL OF PONCY WANKERSOnlyLivingBoy said:
Very persuasive, although I've never seen the film. Is it any good? Has a stellar cast.kinabalu said:Donald Trump. What a jerk. I’ve been posting for ages that he is heading for the rocks and thank god it looks like I’m right again. Of course I do not (despite my almost spooky record) expect people to take my calls on blind trust. I owe it to the site to provide a killer exposition of why Trump is toast. Let’s start with what he must hold to have a chance of re-election – the Rust Belt.
So if you’re like me the first thing you think of when hearing that term is the motion picture, The Deer Hunter. We’ve all seen it. It’s a modern classic. It was on again last week and I watched it, this time with a focus not on the plot and the dialogue – which I know backwards – but on what it tells us about this year’s presidential election.
It’s set in Pennsylvania where Trump is defending a margin of 0.72%. Polls have him losing it but we don’t need polls when we can listen to real flesh & blood residents of the state and we have a solid sample of them here. We have Michael (Robert de Niro), Nick (Christopher Walken), Stevie (John Savage), Fredo (John Cazale), and of course Linda (Meryl Streep). Blue collar. Steel. Backbone of America. Woke? Give me a break.
In 2016 they voted as follows. Linda for Clinton (swayed by pussygate). Fredo for Trump (also influenced by pussygate – at last a politician he could relate to). Walken and Stevie for Trump (jobs mainly plus time for something different). De Niro, as one would expect, saw through the Donald, could see he was a phony, but felt Hillary Clinton had nothing to say to people like him. So despite being interested in politics, he didn’t vote. He went hunting in the mountains (for deer) instead.
So what do they plan to do in 2020? Have they made their minds up yet? Turns out they have and the results are striking.
Linda and Fredo are unchanged and further entrenched. She hates Trump with a passion, he is looking forward to the rallies and breaking out his cap again. Since his accident at the plant which left him in a wheelchair Stevie has become a rather serious-minded person. In particular he no longer finds Donald Trump remotely funny. He’s had his fill of him and will be voting Dem. As will Walken, who is bitterly disappointed by Trump’s response to the coronavirus. “Shit, the guy can’t tell his ass from his windpipe,” as he put it. De Niro smirks and nods at that. But Biden looks like a crock of shit to him so once more, his interest in politics notwithstanding, he won’t be voting. Plans to spend polling day as he did in 2016 – up in the mountains shooting deer.
Scores on the doors. In 2016 this group delivered 3 votes for Trump and 1 for Clinton. In 2020 it’s the exact opposite, 3 for Biden and only 1 for Trump. Just Fredo with his MAGA gear and conspiracy theories about “lizards” and “globalists” and all the rest of it. The basest of the base.
Conclusion? Too obvious to bother spelling out beyond “landslide”.
Nap of the day. You can back Biden to take Penn at 1.65. There are worse bets.
That is harsh beyond belief, Malcolm.
0 -
Checked the price of oil lately?OldKingCole said:
I thought Deutsche Bank was more likely to need the money.Peter_the_Punter said:
Or Putin calling in his loans.OldKingCole said:
You could well be right, but that still won't stop the IRS going after him.Dura_Ace said:
I think he more likely to lose, say he only ever wanted a single term and achieved everything he wanted to anyway.NorthofStoke said:If Trump believes he he is heading for defeat might he resign and Pence will then dish out the pardons?
1 -
Another letter for the 1922 then.Scott_xP said:0 -
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.0 -
Re-tweeting Angela Rayner. How are the mighty fallenScott_xP said:0 -
Pay attention to this poll in around 12 months time. If the gap hasn't closed markedly Starmer is in trouble.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Is don't know still high for Starmer or is at more normal levels these days?HYUFD said:
Replacing Boris makes little differenceMaxPB said:
Labour has a huge mountain to climb and he may not (probably won't) be facing Boris. 2024 is a long time away and so far Starmer is benefiting from not being Corbyn but not much else. Most people I know have got little to no impression of what he stands for, It feels a bit likes Ed Miliband.CorrectHorseBattery said:I think it's likely Biden wins this year (got a bet on it) and Starmer becomes PM in 2024.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1274003884286099462?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1274005230418608128?s=203 -
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.HYUFD said:
Epping just come up as a Con gain, back when it included Harlow and was a marginal I believe.HYUFD said:
Speaking of Heathydoethur said:
Rubbish, on that basis it has to go to Major - 14,093,007 votes.williamglenn said:
Therefore he’s empirically the best Tory leader of the last 50 years?HYUFD said:
Heath was the last leader to get over 45% of the vote when the Tories got 46% in 1970another_richard said:
PBers get overly excited by polls especially when a party is hitting unreal extremes of one sort or another.Mexicanpete said:
It wasn't on here at the time. Fifty percent plus was mark of Johnson's invincibility and a breakthrough widely celebrated.another_richard said:
Anything above 45% was, is and always will be froth.Mexicanpete said:
But in reality anything above 45% was, is and always will be froth.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1274278137581522944?s=20
Just started watching it now
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.
2 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCDIYvFmgW8malcolmg 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.kinabalu said:
De Niro and Walken are "poncy wankers" in that brutal russian roulette scene?malcolmg said:
YES FULL OF PONCY WANKERSOnlyLivingBoy said:
Very persuasive, although I've never seen the film. Is it any good? Has a stellar cast.kinabalu said:Donald Trump. What a jerk. I’ve been posting for ages that he is heading for the rocks and thank god it looks like I’m right again. Of course I do not (despite my almost spooky record) expect people to take my calls on blind trust. I owe it to the site to provide a killer exposition of why Trump is toast. Let’s start with what he must hold to have a chance of re-election – the Rust Belt.
So if you’re like me the first thing you think of when hearing that term is the motion picture, The Deer Hunter. We’ve all seen it. It’s a modern classic. It was on again last week and I watched it, this time with a focus not on the plot and the dialogue – which I know backwards – but on what it tells us about this year’s presidential election.
It’s set in Pennsylvania where Trump is defending a margin of 0.72%. Polls have him losing it but we don’t need polls when we can listen to real flesh & blood residents of the state and we have a solid sample of them here. We have Michael (Robert de Niro), Nick (Christopher Walken), Stevie (John Savage), Fredo (John Cazale), and of course Linda (Meryl Streep). Blue collar. Steel. Backbone of America. Woke? Give me a break.
In 2016 they voted as follows. Linda for Clinton (swayed by pussygate). Fredo for Trump (also influenced by pussygate – at last a politician he could relate to). Walken and Stevie for Trump (jobs mainly plus time for something different). De Niro, as one would expect, saw through the Donald, could see he was a phony, but felt Hillary Clinton had nothing to say to people like him. So despite being interested in politics, he didn’t vote. He went hunting in the mountains (for deer) instead.
So what do they plan to do in 2020? Have they made their minds up yet? Turns out they have and the results are striking.
Linda and Fredo are unchanged and further entrenched. She hates Trump with a passion, he is looking forward to the rallies and breaking out his cap again. Since his accident at the plant which left him in a wheelchair Stevie has become a rather serious-minded person. In particular he no longer finds Donald Trump remotely funny. He’s had his fill of him and will be voting Dem. As will Walken, who is bitterly disappointed by Trump’s response to the coronavirus. “Shit, the guy can’t tell his ass from his windpipe,” as he put it. De Niro smirks and nods at that. But Biden looks like a crock of shit to him so once more, his interest in politics notwithstanding, he won’t be voting. Plans to spend polling day as he did in 2016 – up in the mountains shooting deer.
Scores on the doors. In 2016 this group delivered 3 votes for Trump and 1 for Clinton. In 2020 it’s the exact opposite, 3 for Biden and only 1 for Trump. Just Fredo with his MAGA gear and conspiracy theories about “lizards” and “globalists” and all the rest of it. The basest of the base.
Conclusion? Too obvious to bother spelling out beyond “landslide”.
Nap of the day. You can back Biden to take Penn at 1.65. There are worse bets.
That is harsh beyond belief, Malcolm.
PS: no prisoners today , just the truth2 -
C'mon. De Niro is a giant of the cinema. Mean Streets to Meet The Parents - talk about a journey!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.kinabalu said:
De Niro and Walken are "poncy wankers" in that brutal russian roulette scene?malcolmg said:
YES FULL OF PONCY WANKERSOnlyLivingBoy said:
Very persuasive, although I've never seen the film. Is it any good? Has a stellar cast.kinabalu said:Donald Trump. What a jerk. I’ve been posting for ages that he is heading for the rocks and thank god it looks like I’m right again. Of course I do not (despite my almost spooky record) expect people to take my calls on blind trust. I owe it to the site to provide a killer exposition of why Trump is toast. Let’s start with what he must hold to have a chance of re-election – the Rust Belt.
So if you’re like me the first thing you think of when hearing that term is the motion picture, The Deer Hunter. We’ve all seen it. It’s a modern classic. It was on again last week and I watched it, this time with a focus not on the plot and the dialogue – which I know backwards – but on what it tells us about this year’s presidential election.
It’s set in Pennsylvania where Trump is defending a margin of 0.72%. Polls have him losing it but we don’t need polls when we can listen to real flesh & blood residents of the state and we have a solid sample of them here. We have Michael (Robert de Niro), Nick (Christopher Walken), Stevie (John Savage), Fredo (John Cazale), and of course Linda (Meryl Streep). Blue collar. Steel. Backbone of America. Woke? Give me a break.
In 2016 they voted as follows. Linda for Clinton (swayed by pussygate). Fredo for Trump (also influenced by pussygate – at last a politician he could relate to). Walken and Stevie for Trump (jobs mainly plus time for something different). De Niro, as one would expect, saw through the Donald, could see he was a phony, but felt Hillary Clinton had nothing to say to people like him. So despite being interested in politics, he didn’t vote. He went hunting in the mountains (for deer) instead.
So what do they plan to do in 2020? Have they made their minds up yet? Turns out they have and the results are striking.
Linda and Fredo are unchanged and further entrenched. She hates Trump with a passion, he is looking forward to the rallies and breaking out his cap again. Since his accident at the plant which left him in a wheelchair Stevie has become a rather serious-minded person. In particular he no longer finds Donald Trump remotely funny. He’s had his fill of him and will be voting Dem. As will Walken, who is bitterly disappointed by Trump’s response to the coronavirus. “Shit, the guy can’t tell his ass from his windpipe,” as he put it. De Niro smirks and nods at that. But Biden looks like a crock of shit to him so once more, his interest in politics notwithstanding, he won’t be voting. Plans to spend polling day as he did in 2016 – up in the mountains shooting deer.
Scores on the doors. In 2016 this group delivered 3 votes for Trump and 1 for Clinton. In 2020 it’s the exact opposite, 3 for Biden and only 1 for Trump. Just Fredo with his MAGA gear and conspiracy theories about “lizards” and “globalists” and all the rest of it. The basest of the base.
Conclusion? Too obvious to bother spelling out beyond “landslide”.
Nap of the day. You can back Biden to take Penn at 1.65. There are worse bets.
That is harsh beyond belief, Malcolm.
PS: no prisoners today , just the truth0 -
-
Oh so it has a socialism feel to it too - I really must watch this film.Malmesbury said:
Mind you, the attempt at socialism-using-perfect-foresight fails.kinabalu said:
I will definitely see it one day. Think I'm bound to like it.Malmesbury said:
Groundhog day is a bit saccharine in places - but part of it's genius is how the main character tries smart and dumb things. In a way that makes complete sense with the character and the environment he finds himself in.kinabalu said:
Right. That is more upbeat. Groundhog Day is a film high on my 'have not seen and really must' list. Top spot currently held by Blade Runner.kle4 said:
The thing about Groundhog day is in the end the cycle is broken as lessons were learned and everyone is happy, so it may not be a mood killer .kinabalu said:
Oh god that is a mood killer. Please may you be wrong. But seriously, yes of course it's possible. Really can't see it though. This is a bizarre experiment which has failed and I think enough truth can now be seen by enough people such that he is unelectable a 2nd time.Fishing said:I haven't actually seen the Deer Hunter, but am thinking that November might conceivably be more like another Pennsylvania-based movie - Groundhog Day.
0 -
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.1 -
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!0 -
If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt Starmer gives her a moments thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.businessinsider.com/moran-starmer-labour-should-fear-me-lib-dem-leader-2020-6
Layla Moran is a gift to Labour.
Nor does be need to
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.5 -
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.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt Starmer gives her a moments thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.businessinsider.com/moran-starmer-labour-should-fear-me-lib-dem-leader-2020-6
Layla Moran is a gift to Labour.
Nor does be need to
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).
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.0 -
A possible campaign line: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!
"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."0 -
I wonder what the low cost alternative is going to be? An A-Z sellotaped to a Nokia?Scott_xP said:3 -
-
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.Peter_the_Punter said:
Checked the price of oil lately?OldKingCole said:
I thought Deutsche Bank was more likely to need the money.Peter_the_Punter said:
Or Putin calling in his loans.OldKingCole said:
You could well be right, but that still won't stop the IRS going after him.Dura_Ace said:
I think he more likely to lose, say he only ever wanted a single term and achieved everything he wanted to anyway.NorthofStoke said:If Trump believes he he is heading for defeat might he resign and Pence will then dish out the pardons?
1 -
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 placed0 -
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???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.Malmesbury said:
The problem with this, is that you have your examples making (semi) rational decisions. The Trump block is all about "gut" voting.kinabalu said:Donald Trump. What a jerk. I’ve been posting for ages that he is heading for the rocks and thank god it looks like I’m right again. Of course I do not (despite my almost spooky record) expect people to take my calls on blind trust. I owe it to the site to provide a killer exposition of why Trump is toast. Let’s start with what he must hold to have a chance of re-election – the Rust Belt.
So if you’re like me the first thing you think of when hearing that term is the motion picture, The Deer Hunter. We’ve all seen it. It’s a modern classic. It was on again last week and I watched it, this time with a focus not on the plot and the dialogue – which I know backwards – but on what it tells us about this year’s presidential election.
It’s set in Pennsylvania where Trump is defending a margin of 0.72%. Polls have him losing it but we don’t need polls when we can listen to real flesh & blood residents of the state and we have a solid sample of them here. We have Michael (Robert de Niro), Nick (Christopher Walken), Stevie (John Savage), Fredo (John Cazale), and of course Linda (Meryl Streep). Blue collar. Steel. Backbone of America. Woke? Give me a break.
In 2016 they voted as follows. Linda for Clinton (swayed by pussygate). Fredo for Trump (also influenced by pussygate – at last a politician he could relate to). Walken and Stevie for Trump (jobs mainly plus time for something different). De Niro, as one would expect, saw through the Donald, could see he was a phony, but felt Hillary Clinton had nothing to say to people like him. So despite being interested in politics, he didn’t vote. He went hunting in the mountains (for deer) instead.
So what do they plan to do in 2020? Have they made their minds up yet? Turns out they have and the results are striking.
Linda and Fredo are unchanged and further entrenched. She hates Trump with a passion, he is looking forward to the rallies and breaking out his cap again. Since his accident at the plant which left him in a wheelchair Stevie has become a rather serious-minded person. In particular he no longer finds Donald Trump remotely funny. He’s had his fill of him and will be voting Dem. As will Walken, who is bitterly disappointed by Trump’s response to the coronavirus. “Shit, the guy can’t tell his ass from his windpipe,” as he put it. De Niro smirks and nods at that. But Biden looks like a crock of shit to him so once more, his interest in politics notwithstanding, he won’t be voting. Plans to spend polling day as he did in 2016 – up in the mountains shooting deer.
Scores on the doors. In 2016 this group delivered 3 votes for Trump and 1 for Clinton. In 2020 it’s the exact opposite, 3 for Biden and only 1 for Trump. Just Fredo with his MAGA gear and conspiracy theories about “lizards” and “globalists” and all the rest of it. The basest of the base.
Conclusion? Too obvious to bother spelling out beyond “landslide”.
Nap of the day. You can back Biden to take Penn at 1.65. There are worse bets.
That being said, the poll strongly suggest that a chunk of his core vote has gone.
At least for the purposes of answering polls.
The worry now is that we are seeing "Shy Trump" voting intentions.
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.
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.1 -
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=202 -
If they had all voted Tory, it might have cost you another 60 seats.CorrectHorseBattery said: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
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.1 -
What do you mean, reached? That was their entire election strategy!Theuniondivvie said: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=201 -
Starmer needs to find a way to neutralise the SNP issue in the minds of floating voters.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt Starmer gives her a moments thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.businessinsider.com/moran-starmer-labour-should-fear-me-lib-dem-leader-2020-6
Layla Moran is a gift to Labour.
Nor does be need to
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.
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.0 -
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.ydoethur said:0 -
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.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt Starmer gives her a moments thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.businessinsider.com/moran-starmer-labour-should-fear-me-lib-dem-leader-2020-6
Layla Moran is a gift to Labour.
Nor does be need to
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.
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.1 -
Yes it’s about 18 weeks I thinkjustin124 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!0 -
They’re just going round and round.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.ydoethur said:
Pause.
Ah, my coat...0 -
Good post.ydoethur said:
If they had all voted Tory, it might have cost you another 60 seats.CorrectHorseBattery said: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
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.
His strategy was based on young people not voting. They don't vote, time to give up on energising them.0 -
The “playing into his hands” narrative is instinctively compelling.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???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.Malmesbury said:
The problem with this, is that you have your examples making (semi) rational decisions. The Trump block is all about "gut" voting.kinabalu said:Donald Trump. What a jerk. I’ve been posting for ages that he is heading for the rocks and thank god it looks like I’m right again. Of course I do not (despite my almost spooky record) expect people to take my calls on blind trust. I owe it to the site to provide a killer exposition of why Trump is toast. Let’s start with what he must hold to have a chance of re-election – the Rust Belt.
So if you’re like me the first thing you think of when hearing that term is the motion picture, The Deer Hunter. We’ve all seen it. It’s a modern classic. It was on again last week and I watched it, this time with a focus not on the plot and the dialogue – which I know backwards – but on what it tells us about this year’s presidential election.
It’s set in Pennsylvania where Trump is defending a margin of 0.72%. Polls have him losing it but we don’t need polls when we can listen to real flesh & blood residents of the state and we have a solid sample of them here. We have Michael (Robert de Niro), Nick (Christopher Walken), Stevie (John Savage), Fredo (John Cazale), and of course Linda (Meryl Streep). Blue collar. Steel. Backbone of America. Woke? Give me a break.
In 2016 they voted as follows. Linda for Clinton (swayed by pussygate). Fredo for Trump (also influenced by pussygate – at last a politician he could relate to). Walken and Stevie for Trump (jobs mainly plus time for something different). De Niro, as one would expect, saw through the Donald, could see he was a phony, but felt Hillary Clinton had nothing to say to people like him. So despite being interested in politics, he didn’t vote. He went hunting in the mountains (for deer) instead.
So what do they plan to do in 2020? Have they made their minds up yet? Turns out they have and the results are striking.
Linda and Fredo are unchanged and further entrenched. She hates Trump with a passion, he is looking forward to the rallies and breaking out his cap again. Since his accident at the plant which left him in a wheelchair Stevie has become a rather serious-minded person. In particular he no longer finds Donald Trump remotely funny. He’s had his fill of him and will be voting Dem. As will Walken, who is bitterly disappointed by Trump’s response to the coronavirus. “Shit, the guy can’t tell his ass from his windpipe,” as he put it. De Niro smirks and nods at that. But Biden looks like a crock of shit to him so once more, his interest in politics notwithstanding, he won’t be voting. Plans to spend polling day as he did in 2016 – up in the mountains shooting deer.
Scores on the doors. In 2016 this group delivered 3 votes for Trump and 1 for Clinton. In 2020 it’s the exact opposite, 3 for Biden and only 1 for Trump. Just Fredo with his MAGA gear and conspiracy theories about “lizards” and “globalists” and all the rest of it. The basest of the base.
Conclusion? Too obvious to bother spelling out beyond “landslide”.
Nap of the day. You can back Biden to take Penn at 1.65. There are worse bets.
That being said, the poll strongly suggest that a chunk of his core vote has gone.
At least for the purposes of answering polls.
The worry now is that we are seeing "Shy Trump" voting intentions.
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.
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.
But, there’s been no evidence for it. Indeed last time it was aired on here there was a notable swing to Biden.2 -
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=200 -
His strategy needs to be opposing independence strongly.Sandpit said:
Starmer needs to find a way to neutralise the SNP issue in the minds of floating voters.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt Starmer gives her a moments thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.businessinsider.com/moran-starmer-labour-should-fear-me-lib-dem-leader-2020-6
Layla Moran is a gift to Labour.
Nor does be need to
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.
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.
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.1 -
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!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.MaxPB said:
Labour has a huge mountain to climb and he may not (probably won't) be facing Boris. 2024 is a long time away and so far Starmer is benefiting from not being Corbyn but not much else. Most people I know have got little to no impression of what he stands for, It feels a bit likes Ed Miliband.CorrectHorseBattery said:I think it's likely Biden wins this year (got a bet on it) and Starmer becomes PM in 2024.
0 -
Is this report official? How do they align with Sir K and the new leadership?CorrectHorseBattery said: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
AIUI it is a group around Ed Milliband, including such as LIsa Nandy.0 -
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!CorrectHorseBattery said:
His strategy needs to be opposing independence strongly.Sandpit said:
Starmer needs to find a way to neutralise the SNP issue in the minds of floating voters.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt Starmer gives her a moments thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.businessinsider.com/moran-starmer-labour-should-fear-me-lib-dem-leader-2020-6
Layla Moran is a gift to Labour.
Nor does be need to
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.
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.
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.
Of course that did not go too well. Whjat you suggest is at least rational!1 -
Has a hashtag dated as badly as #StopTheCoup?Theuniondivvie said: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=200 -
1970 Election.
LOL - journos blaming polls for journos getting it wrong ;-)1 -
Groundhog Day was pretty good film, not sure if it will have aged well but reckon it will.kinabalu said:
I will definitely see it one day. Think I'm bound to like it.Malmesbury said:
Groundhog day is a bit saccharine in places - but part of it's genius is how the main character tries smart and dumb things. In a way that makes complete sense with the character and the environment he finds himself in.kinabalu said:
Right. That is more upbeat. Groundhog Day is a film high on my 'have not seen and really must' list. Top spot currently held by Blade Runner.kle4 said:
The thing about Groundhog day is in the end the cycle is broken as lessons were learned and everyone is happy, so it may not be a mood killer .kinabalu said:
Oh god that is a mood killer. Please may you be wrong. But seriously, yes of course it's possible. Really can't see it though. This is a bizarre experiment which has failed and I think enough truth can now be seen by enough people such that he is unelectable a 2nd time.Fishing said:I haven't actually seen the Deer Hunter, but am thinking that November might conceivably be more like another Pennsylvania-based movie - Groundhog Day.
1 -
I believe it's a group across the entire party, separate from the leadership.MattW said:
Is this report official? How do they align with Sir K and the new leadership?CorrectHorseBattery said: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
AIUI it is a group around Ed Milliband, including such as LIsa Nandy.
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.0 -
Indeed - Norman Tebbit defeated Stan Newens.HYUFD said:
Epping just come up as a Con gain, back when it included Harlow and was a marginal I believe.HYUFD said:
Speaking of Heathydoethur said:
Rubbish, on that basis it has to go to Major - 14,093,007 votes.williamglenn said:
Therefore he’s empirically the best Tory leader of the last 50 years?HYUFD said:
Heath was the last leader to get over 45% of the vote when the Tories got 46% in 1970another_richard said:
PBers get overly excited by polls especially when a party is hitting unreal extremes of one sort or another.Mexicanpete said:
It wasn't on here at the time. Fifty percent plus was mark of Johnson's invincibility and a breakthrough widely celebrated.another_richard said:
Anything above 45% was, is and always will be froth.Mexicanpete said:
But in reality anything above 45% was, is and always will be froth.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1274278137581522944?s=20
Just started watching it now1 -
LOL
McKenzie talking on 1970 GE replay about the public demand to ban polling during elections.
2 -
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.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!CorrectHorseBattery said:
His strategy needs to be opposing independence strongly.Sandpit said:
Starmer needs to find a way to neutralise the SNP issue in the minds of floating voters.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt Starmer gives her a moments thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.businessinsider.com/moran-starmer-labour-should-fear-me-lib-dem-leader-2020-6
Layla Moran is a gift to Labour.
Nor does be need to
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.
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.
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.
Of course that did not go too well. Whjat you suggest is at least rational!
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).1 -
They did not win Salford!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.0 -
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.0 -
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.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
If Starmer has any sense, he'd give some consideration to how to work with the Lib Dems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I doubt Starmer gives her a moments thoughtCorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.businessinsider.com/moran-starmer-labour-should-fear-me-lib-dem-leader-2020-6
Layla Moran is a gift to Labour.
Nor does be need to
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.0 -
I've agreed to join forces with Tesco for my lunch.Theuniondivvie said: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=205 -
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.CorrectHorseBattery said: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.1 -
Brilliant. It would remove so much to talk about though, and no one wants that.rottenborough said:LOL
McKenzie talking on 1970 GE replay about the public demand to ban polling during elections.0 -
That depends if any millennial cults are on twitter proclaiming the day of judgement/ascension etc through a hashtag.BannedinnParis said:
Has a hashtag dated as badly as #StopTheCoup?Theuniondivvie said: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=200 -
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.CorrectHorseBattery said: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.
And the comparison is not in favour of the latter.2 -
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.4
-
You'd just need to produce statistics by other means. Perhaps a whole new science of electoral divination would develop.kle4 said:
Brilliant. It would remove so much to talk about though, and no one wants that.rottenborough said:LOL
McKenzie talking on 1970 GE replay about the public demand to ban polling during elections.0 -
Do you remember the Menzies Campbell rap for the 2007 locals?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.
0 -
I only take note of divinations by prophetic octopi and the like.williamglenn said:
You'd just need to produce statistics by other means. Perhaps a whole new science of electoral divination would develop.kle4 said:
Brilliant. It would remove so much to talk about though, and no one wants that.rottenborough said:LOL
McKenzie talking on 1970 GE replay about the public demand to ban polling during elections.2 -
I don't disagree - though I suspect that were the election held now , Corbyn would do a fair bit better.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.CorrectHorseBattery said: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.
And the comparison is not in favour of the latter.0 -
I don't actually.ydoethur said:
Do you remember the Menzies Campbell rap for the 2007 locals?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.
1 -
That'll teach him to believe his own hype and give Boris what he wanted. He even had me fooled.justin124 said:
I don't disagree - though I suspect that were the election held now , Corbyn would do a fair bit better.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.CorrectHorseBattery said: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.
And the comparison is not in favour of the latter.0 -
Trigger warning:justin124 said:
I don't actually.ydoethur said:
Do you remember the Menzies Campbell rap for the 2007 locals?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.
It’s embarrassing, cringeworthy, bloody awful and incredibly stupid.
But it does rather tend to prove your point.
https://youtu.be/Rh3UlZcRQrY0 -
Doesn't seem that solemn, Robin Day laughing and having some very jovial chats with those being interviewedjustin124 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.
0 -
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.kle4 said:
That'll teach him to believe his own hype and give Boris what he wanted. He even had me fooled.justin124 said:
I don't disagree - though I suspect that were the election held now , Corbyn would do a fair bit better.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.CorrectHorseBattery said: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.
And the comparison is not in favour of the latter.0 -
Oh dear - that was really awful.ydoethur said:
Trigger warning:justin124 said:
I don't actually.ydoethur said:
Do you remember the Menzies Campbell rap for the 2007 locals?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.
It’s embarrassing, cringeworthy, bloody awful and incredibly stupid.
But it does rather tend to prove your point.
https://youtu.be/Rh3UlZcRQrY2 -
They are full of comedians nowadays so be hard to make it a serious programme.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.
0 -
I saw it again recently. Holds up fine, in my opinion.malcolmg said:
Groundhog Day was pretty good film, not sure if it will have aged well but reckon it will.kinabalu said:
I will definitely see it one day. Think I'm bound to like it.Malmesbury said:
Groundhog day is a bit saccharine in places - but part of it's genius is how the main character tries smart and dumb things. In a way that makes complete sense with the character and the environment he finds himself in.kinabalu said:
Right. That is more upbeat. Groundhog Day is a film high on my 'have not seen and really must' list. Top spot currently held by Blade Runner.kle4 said:
The thing about Groundhog day is in the end the cycle is broken as lessons were learned and everyone is happy, so it may not be a mood killer .kinabalu said:
Oh god that is a mood killer. Please may you be wrong. But seriously, yes of course it's possible. Really can't see it though. This is a bizarre experiment which has failed and I think enough truth can now be seen by enough people such that he is unelectable a 2nd time.Fishing said:I haven't actually seen the Deer Hunter, but am thinking that November might conceivably be more like another Pennsylvania-based movie - Groundhog Day.
0 -
They are now interviewing voters and a young Simon Jenkins at a discoHYUFD said:
Doesn't seem that solemn, Robin Day laughing and having some very jovial chats with those being interviewedjustin124 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.
0 -
David Dimbleby interviewed Wilson on election night in 1970 and was still presenting elections on the BBC until Huw Edwards replaced him last yearmalcolmg said:
They are full of comedians nowadays so be hard to make it a serious programme.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.
0 -
We'd need to drive the octopi around the country so they could produce a constituency-level prediction.kle4 said:
I only take note of divinations by prophetic octopi and the like.williamglenn said:
You'd just need to produce statistics by other means. Perhaps a whole new science of electoral divination would develop.kle4 said:
Brilliant. It would remove so much to talk about though, and no one wants that.rottenborough said:LOL
McKenzie talking on 1970 GE replay about the public demand to ban polling during elections.0 -
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.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 yearmalcolmg said:
They are full of comedians nowadays so be hard to make it a serious programme.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.
1 -
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 Toriesjustin124 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.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 yearmalcolmg said:
They are full of comedians nowadays so be hard to make it a serious programme.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.
0 -
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.1
-
Extra hard on Ming of course because as a result of all his athletics training his knees were in a very poor state.justin124 said:
Oh dear - that was really awful.ydoethur said:
Trigger warning:justin124 said:
I don't actually.ydoethur said:
Do you remember the Menzies Campbell rap for the 2007 locals?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.
It’s embarrassing, cringeworthy, bloody awful and incredibly stupid.
But it does rather tend to prove your point.
https://youtu.be/Rh3UlZcRQrY0 -
Its all a bit samey thoughStereotomy said:
I saw it again recently. Holds up fine, in my opinion.malcolmg said:
Groundhog Day was pretty good film, not sure if it will have aged well but reckon it will.kinabalu said:
I will definitely see it one day. Think I'm bound to like it.Malmesbury said:
Groundhog day is a bit saccharine in places - but part of it's genius is how the main character tries smart and dumb things. In a way that makes complete sense with the character and the environment he finds himself in.kinabalu said:
Right. That is more upbeat. Groundhog Day is a film high on my 'have not seen and really must' list. Top spot currently held by Blade Runner.kle4 said:
The thing about Groundhog day is in the end the cycle is broken as lessons were learned and everyone is happy, so it may not be a mood killer .kinabalu said:
Oh god that is a mood killer. Please may you be wrong. But seriously, yes of course it's possible. Really can't see it though. This is a bizarre experiment which has failed and I think enough truth can now be seen by enough people such that he is unelectable a 2nd time.Fishing said:I haven't actually seen the Deer Hunter, but am thinking that November might conceivably be more like another Pennsylvania-based movie - Groundhog Day.
0 -
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.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.
Should, of course, I keep going for another three years.
1 -
"Brown could feasibly have formed a Government"CorrectHorseBattery said: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'd argue with 'feasibly', but accept 'theoretically'.0 -
-
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_song said:
"Brown could feasibly have formed a Government"CorrectHorseBattery said: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'd argue with 'feasibly', but accept 'theoretically'.0 -
Does that count?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.logical_song said:
"Brown could feasibly have formed a Government"CorrectHorseBattery said: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'd argue with 'feasibly', but accept 'theoretically'.0 -
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.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.
1 -
A young Gyles Brandreth interviewed at the Oxford Union0
-
I wouldn't even put it that high; he'd have to get the DUP on-side to do it.logical_song said:
"Brown could feasibly have formed a Government"CorrectHorseBattery said: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'd argue with 'feasibly', but accept 'theoretically'.0 -
And minejustin124 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.
0 -
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.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.
1 -
Same age as me. My birthday will be on 7 July. Unfortunately, I won’t be in a position to retire at 60.OldKingCole said:
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.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.
Should, of course, I keep going for another three years.1 -
Because you’re not worth it?HYUFD said:1 -
You were on the bevvy and nags in 4th year? An early developer!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.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.
0 -
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.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.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.
0 -
I will be 66 on 8 July.ThomasNashe said:
Same age as me. My birthday will be on 7 July. Unfortunately, I won’t be in a position to retire at 60.OldKingCole said:
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.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.
Should, of course, I keep going for another three years.0 -
NHS England data out -
Headline - 71
Last 7 days - 59
Yesterday - 6
0 -
1-9. 9 is the top grade.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.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.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.
2 -
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.2
-
IIRC from what my grandchildren tell me, 9 is top, although I believe one can get a 9*.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.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.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've got some grandchildren teaching for them and others taking them!
0 -
Don’t think so. 9 is an approximate equivalent to the old A*, though apparently a bit harder to get.OldKingCole said:
IIRC from what my grandchildren tell me, 9 is top, although I believe one can get a 9*.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.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.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've got some grandchildren teaching for them and others taking them!
0 -
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.HYUFD said:3 -
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.ThomasNashe said:
Don’t think so. 9 is an approximate equivalent to the old A*, though apparently a bit harder to get.OldKingCole said:
IIRC from what my grandchildren tell me, 9 is top, although I believe one can get a 9*.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.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.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've got some grandchildren teaching for them and others taking them!
What is the difference, do any of our educators know, between GCSE and IGCSE?0 -
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.ThomasNashe said:
Don’t think so. 9 is an approximate equivalent to the old A*, though apparently a bit harder to get.OldKingCole said:
IIRC from what my grandchildren tell me, 9 is top, although I believe one can get a 9*.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.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.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've got some grandchildren teaching for them and others taking them!0 -
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.eadric said:
Yes, this one from L'Oreal's lovely new consultant is especially liberating:kle4 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.HYUFD said:
“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.
Racists should be confronted whoever they are, even if they pretend they are anti-racism. Actions and words reveal the truth.1
