politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest charts from Ipsos MORI – the UK’s most experienced
Options
Comments
-
It shows it is a forced choice in a divided America. My French colleagues tell me what Macron has done wrong but if he only ever has to run off against a card-carrying fascist, it does not really matter, at least for betting purposes.NerysHughes said:
It won't matter, Americans will start shouting USA USA USA and vote TrumpGallowgate said:
And how many millions of ballots will have been cast before this point?NerysHughes said:
I did say this a week ago. About 10 days before the election he will annouce the vaccine, He will get the army mobilised to deliver it. he will be seen as America's saviour and he will win.rottenborough said:Trump: COVID-19 vaccine may be ready 'right around' Election Day
The Hill
Obviously there’s no way they can distribute 300m vaccines in 10 days anyway.
Scary I know, but the fact that Trump is not 50 points behind with the madness that he talks shows that Americans are easily pleased.
Trump is a complete arse, a liar and probably corrupt, but he's stopped the Neocons dropping bombs on people, and because he is such a useless president has not actually managed to withdraw Obamacare from his voters. And he only has to beat an old man apparently struggling with marble-lossage.0 -
According to Government figures on the 4th August 65 people were admitted to Hospital in Wales with Covid, only 20 in England. Yesterday 74 were admiited in Wales. This is despite Wales only having a total of 110 in hospital. I wonder why people compiling these stats are not challenging them.
As of yesterday there were 694 in hospital in England. This figure is failling quickly, around 200 each week.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare0 -
I think we need a vaccine against Trump as much as we need a vaccine against Covid 19.Mexicanpete said:
Trump's idea of a vaccine and your idea of a vaccine might be somewhat different.rottenborough said:Trump: COVID-19 vaccine may be ready 'right around' Election Day
The Hill1 -
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.2 -
The England data is lagged and fills in for up to three days.NerysHughes said:According to Government figures on the 4th August 65 people were admitted to Hospital in Wales with Covid, only 20 in England. Yesterday 74 were admiited in Wales. This is despite Wales only having a total of 110 in hospital. I wonder why people compiling these stats are not challenging them.
As of yesterday there were 694 in hospital in England. This figure is failling quickly, around 200 each week.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare0 -
Trump isn't going to take a chance on a vaccine saving his skin alone.Gallowgate said:Trump will announce he has a vaccine ready, even if he doesn’t. That could potentially back-fire enormously.
I also wonder what the Trump supporting anti-vaxers will think.
Industrial scale cheating is on the cards. If is not in the Whitehouse on January 21st he winds up in a New York state penetentiary soon after!0 -
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.0 -
NHS England Case data - scaled to 100K population
Last 3-5 days..... don't
0 -
NHS England Case data - absolute
Last 3-5 days..... don't
0 -
NHS England Case data
Last 3-5 days..... don't
0 -
SKS looks and acts like a dull politician. In this media world it won't cut through. Part of Corbyns charm was that he was a bit mad. People like something different. SKS has no charisma.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.0 -
PHE all settings death data - includes lawyers with baseball bats etc
0 -
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.1 -
Overall the Tory vote looks to me to be roughly where it was at GE19, Starmer has picked up around 4% off of the Lib Dems.
Lib Dem polling looks abysmal - there are precisely 0 Lib Dem targets for Labour though and 1 for the Tories (Farron). The structural changes at GE2019 that yielded the red wall make St Albans safe enough too.
Targets such as Kensington and Wycombe will be easier than Blyth Valley and Don Valley for Labour I reckon (Kensington/Blyth) and (Don/Wycombe) are very close on UNS.1 -
-
Afternoon all. I must say It's a while since I've met anyone who did think that. After he was elected in December I did.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Of course, I haven't got out much lately, and members of the on-line discussion groups I frequent are broadly anti-Brexit, whether Labour, LibDem or Labour voting.0 -
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.1 -
Light the beacons of Gondor, Jos Buttler has caught one.0
-
Even with that Wales figures are so high if you compare population sizes, number of cases and inpatientsMaxPB said:
The England data is lagged and fills in for up to three days.NerysHughes said:According to Government figures on the 4th August 65 people were admitted to Hospital in Wales with Covid, only 20 in England. Yesterday 74 were admiited in Wales. This is despite Wales only having a total of 110 in hospital. I wonder why people compiling these stats are not challenging them.
As of yesterday there were 694 in hospital in England. This figure is failling quickly, around 200 each week.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare0 -
Johnson is the key.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
It is not Starmer's lofty image that is the problem, it is Johnson's magical pied piper character that will do for Starmer.
Get rid of Johnson (as some have been suggesting over his lamentable Covid-19 performance) and it is game on for Starmer.0 -
I meet them daily. Johnson has something which you and I can't see but others do.OldKingCole said:
Afternoon all. I must say It's a while since I've met anyone who did think that. After he was elected in December I did.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Of course, I haven't got out much lately, and members of the on-line discussion groups I frequent are broadly anti-Brexit, whether Labour, LibDem or Labour voting.0 -
Presumably earning the middleman Andrew Mills – advisor to the UK Board of Trade, millions more in profit?Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't really see the issue - companies buy those masks by the tens of thousands - surely they can go back on the market and the £150mill is saved?Scott_xP said:https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1291373208822784001
They should read PB
Nothing to see here...0 -
Not my impression in this case.rpjs said:
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
Reading the article, it looks as though the prosecution are seeking the longest possible sentence. One also has to take into account the fact that prosecutions, particularly federal prosecutions, are more politicised than over here.0 -
We’ll see when “Brexit” actually means something. When things actually start to change, for the better, or for the worse.Mexicanpete said:
I meet them daily. Johnson has something which you and I can't see but others do.OldKingCole said:
Afternoon all. I must say It's a while since I've met anyone who did think that. After he was elected in December I did.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Of course, I haven't got out much lately, and members of the on-line discussion groups I frequent are broadly anti-Brexit, whether Labour, LibDem or Labour voting.0 -
-
...
The bigger personality almost always winsMexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.0 -
Hmm, as a Biden backer the last thing I want is a firearms/second amendment trench war dominating the election. The key swing voter in Michigan probably owns a gun and thinks they should have a right to do so.Scott_xP said:1 -
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.0 -
The NRA has become very corrupt - quite a few righty gun owners can't stand them because of this.Pulpstar said:
Hmm, as a Biden backer the last thing I want is a firearms/second amendment trench war dominating the election. The key swing voter in Michigan probably owns a gun and thinks they should have a right to do so.Scott_xP said:
0 -
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.0 -
Not if they are unemployed and on universal credit.NerysHughes said:
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.0 -
I think you're unnecessarily gloomy. The thing with Johnson (as with Trump) is that those who don't like him at all are unlikely to change their minds and warm to him - he's a polarising figure. So his support will either stay the same or, more likely, diminish. But Starmer can still, potentially, win over many people. Johnson is like marmite - you don't suddenly acquire a taste for it late in life if you've always hated it. Starmer, on the other hand, may be an acquired taste. Too soon to tell.Mexicanpete said:
Johnson is the key.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
It is not Starmer's lofty image that is the problem, it is Johnson's magical pied piper character that will do for Starmer.
Get rid of Johnson (as some have been suggesting over his lamentable Covid-19 performance) and it is game on for Starmer.1 -
Let's hope for his sake that his does something with the bat, otherwise surely it's back to his county!TheScreamingEagles said:Light the beacons of Gondor, Jos Buttler has caught one.
0 -
This is interesting.
As we saw with the (bizarre) Kodak deal, the opportunities for graft for those with advance knowledge are potentially considerable.
Not that any such thing would happen, of course.
https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/12913748223253913600 -
John Major says hello!isam said:...
The bigger personality almost always winsMexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.1 -
I've just had a chugger come round for the local hospice. He wasn't wearing a mask. I resisted the temptation to ask if he was trying to drum up business.Gallowgate said:Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.3 -
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.0 -
-
I thought they did almost the opposite recently in order to lower drug prices.Nigelb said:This is interesting.
As we saw with the (bizarre) Kodak deal, the opportunities for graft for those with advance knowledge are potentially considerable.
Not that any such thing would happen, of course.
https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1291374822325391360
*quick Google*
Yep.The measures would allow discounts and import of cheaper drugs from abroad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53534950
So these orders are almost certainly for graft, as they are otherwise illogical.0 -
In a curious parallel, Republicans are canvassing door to door on a large scale for the coming election; Democrats are not doing so.SandraMc said:
I've just had a chugger come round for the local hospice. He wasn't wearing a mask. I resisted the temptation to ask if he was trying to drum up business.Gallowgate said:Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-joe-biden-campaign-door-knockers-391454
I'm not sure how that will play out.0 -
I put my vote in today, for Ed Davey. Canny PBers should note that I always back the losing candidate in LD leadership contests.CorrectHorseBattery said:1 -
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.0 -
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway).Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.0 -
Keir Starmer might be John Major, or John Smith.No_Offence_Alan said:
John Major says hello!isam said:...
The bigger personality almost always winsMexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
If he's a Neil Kinnock that's good enough for me0 -
How come Kinnock got two elections when he lost his first? Corbyn equally should have gone when he lost his first0
-
Its not often remarked on here, but Europe does seem to be struggling very badly with coronavirus right now. Double digit shrinkages in already ailing economies, rising case numbers, and in at least one case (Germany) big political opposition to renewed restriction measures.Scott_xP said:0 -
Alternatively, they will right up to the moment that they don't, then they will start metaphorically throwing crockery at him. Johnson has lots of experience in his life of getting people's affection. Some / many / most go on to regret that afterwards. The extent to which that happens this time is still to be revealed and is much more important than the details of what his opponents do.NerysHughes said:
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.2 -
He inherited a right mess.CorrectHorseBattery said:How come Kinnock got two elections when he lost his first? Corbyn equally should have gone when he lost his first
Inter alia, the SDP split, a Tory majority of 144, and the Tories were doing well in the eyes of the voters, particularly the economy.3 -
Why is that relevant to the Bloomberg Brexit account, or is this an implied admission that the Bloomberg Brexit account just exists to bash Britain?Scott_xP said:
Test and Trace isn't perfect, but to some elements of the media, anything less than every single contact padlocked in their house with an armed guard for two weeks seems to be deemed a failure. 80% of contacts is commonly accepted as effective, even if there's room for improvement.0 -
One of my friends has switched from Davey last time round to Moran. No idea if it's indicative of anything.Foxy said:
I put my vote in today, for Ed Davey. Canny PBers should note that I always back the losing candidate in LD leadership contests.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
It is. Would they even get a custodial sentence here?CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
In America sentences are so ridiculous that it makes sense to shoot anyone who tries to arrest you. Indeed that is part of the problem.0 -
Nothing boils my piss more than the ad hoc use of Latin.TheScreamingEagles said:
He inherited a right mess.CorrectHorseBattery said:How come Kinnock got two elections when he lost his first? Corbyn equally should have gone when he lost his first
Inter alia, the SDP split, a Tory majority of 144, and the Tories were doing well in the eyes of the voters, particularly the economy.
Boom Boom.0 -
Yes, I think it was you who described him as a seducer, but one incapable of being loved in the longer term.Stuartinromford said:
Alternatively, they will right up to the moment that they don't, then they will start metaphorically throwing crockery at him. Johnson has lots of experience in his life of getting people's affection. Some / many / most go on to regret that afterwards. The extent to which that happens this time is still to be revealed and is much more important than the details of what his opponents do.NerysHughes said:
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.2 -
-
The most effective deterrent to crime is a strong likelihood of being caught & punished. Especially if the punishment follows soon after being caught.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.3 -
12-2. Good day for Pakistan.0
-
I think the explanatiopn of the apparent parafox (Starmer very popular, Tories ahead) is the last poll question. Most voters decided against Labour last time, feeling it wasm't ready to form a government (or worse). They've not heard much from Labour since, except from Starmer, so they now feel Starmer seems quite good but the party, dunno. I think he needs to move on to boosting his team.4
-
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.Nigelb said:
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway).Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.0 -
England aren't going to avoid the follow on are they?0
-
Probably. 16-3 now. And even in Manchester it's unlikely to rain for a few days.TheScreamingEagles said:England aren't going to avoid the follow on are they?
0 -
Yes, and speed of justice too. Criminals are not very good at planning for the future. Events too distant or unlikely to come to pass are not much of a deterrent when the very concept of actions and consequences elude them.Phil said:
The most effective deterrent to crime is a strong likelihood of being caught & punished. Especially if the punishment follows soon after being caught.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.0 -
I was speaking to someone who works for NOMS, they don't think Harper's killers will be released at the earliest opportunity.Pulpstar said:
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.Nigelb said:
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway).Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Based on their illiteracy and lack of remorse alone the benchmark for their release has been raised.
They are going to have show a lot of improvement.
Plus they are a part of the traveller community, they are going to need a permanent place of residence to stay and be supervised when they are released.1 -
This is from the same party who sent a list of made up companies for the Government to buy masks from and criticized them for not doing so.Scott_xP said:2 -
Alarmingly, the last recognised batsman is at the crease. Admittedly he's got Joe Root for company, but Root's not going to score many runs. So if Pope gets out, we're fecked.OldKingCole said:
Probably. 16-3 now. And even in Manchester it's unlikely to rain for a few days.TheScreamingEagles said:England aren't going to avoid the follow on are they?
And then it's the tail - Buttler, Woakes, Bess.0 -
They were children; seems only right to try to re-educate them and give them another start.Pulpstar said:
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.Nigelb said:
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway).Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.0 -
Rinse and repeat. It might all be as true as before but Jesus they need to mix up the scripts.Scott_xP said:0 -
I'm not convinced he'll be released before his dotage - too dangerous.Pulpstar said:
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.Nigelb said:
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway).Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.0 -
Illiteracy is as much a factor in earlier release as lack of remorse?TheScreamingEagles said:
I was speaking to someone who works for NOMS, they don't think Harper's killers will be released at the earliest opportunity.Pulpstar said:
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.Nigelb said:
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway).Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Based on their illiteracy and lack of remorse alone the benchmark for their release has been raised.
They are going to have show a lot of improvement.
Plus they are a part of the traveller community, they are going to need a permanent place of residence to stay and be supervised when they are released.0 -
One of the reasons Liverpool have helped asylum seekers is that Dejan Lovren pushed for things like this, because he too was in a similar both when young when his family fled the Bosnian war.0
-
Don't worry, Buttler is still to come...TheScreamingEagles said:England aren't going to avoid the follow on are they?
0 -
You have been promoting this notion for months, and I have disagreed with it for months despite your use of (selective?) polling material.isam said:...
The bigger personality almost always winsMexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Johnson is different. With Johnson it is not just a bigger personality. He has a magic which enough people find alluring. The rest of us find it tiresome. Perhaps over time, more will find it less appealing.
Starmer v. Sunak? The magic of Johnson has gone and it's anyone's game.0 -
Well it does look as if that was another Labour policy that the Tories pinched, buying inadequate equipment off middlemen in shell companies, just with added cronyism.NerysHughes said:
This is from the same party who sent a list of made up companies for the Government to buy masks from and criticized them for not doing so.Scott_xP said:1 -
It can be depending on the seriousness of the conviction.kle4 said:Illiteracy is as much a factor in earlier release as lack of remorse?
They need to show that they have improved and learned what they did was wrong.
If they maintain their level of illiteracy then they aren't going to pass some criteria for release.
They will need to show why they realise what they did was wrong.0 -
The odd thing is that likelihood of being caught has presumably gone up with cctv everywhere and other forensic techniques, and gone down because for many crimes, the police can't be bothered. And trials can still be an age away, mind. To paraphrase Peter Cook, the exams for being a criminal are not very rigorous.Phil said:
The most effective deterrent to crime is a strong likelihood of being caught & punished. Especially if the punishment follows soon after being caught.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.0 -
Bring back YJB.Nigelb said:
Don't worry, Buttler is still to come...TheScreamingEagles said:England aren't going to avoid the follow on are they?
0 -
Literally never too close.TheScreamingEagles said:
They invited Generation Identity's UK Leader on after the Christchurch shootings.0 -
The pressure on the government at the time was enormous. Every day Piers Morgan, Beth Rigby and Co. were screeching about lack of equipment, and that is who the government was listening to at the time.Foxy said:
Well it does look as if that was another Labour policy that the Tories pinched, buying inadequate equipment off middlemen in shell companies, just with added cronyism.NerysHughes said:
This is from the same party who sent a list of made up companies for the Government to buy masks from and criticized them for not doing so.Scott_xP said:
Ripe for the taking.0 -
I am switching from not-Davey to Davey.Pulpstar said:
One of my friends has switched from Davey last time round to Moran. No idea if it's indicative of anything.Foxy said:
I put my vote in today, for Ed Davey. Canny PBers should note that I always back the losing candidate in LD leadership contests.CorrectHorseBattery said:2 -
Yhe police are probably as quick as they can be, but actually getting people to trial seems to take an age. IANAL, but I believe that a significant part of the delay is due to reforms introduced by a certain C Grayling. a 'friend of the PM's'.DecrepiterJohnL said:
The odd thing is that likelihood of being caught has presumably gone up with cctv everywhere and other forensic techniques, and gone down because for many crimes, the police can't be bothered. And trials can still be an age away, mind. To paraphrase Peter Cook, the exams for being a criminal are not very rigorous.Phil said:
The most effective deterrent to crime is a strong likelihood of being caught & punished. Especially if the punishment follows soon after being caught.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Back in the golden age of locking them up and throwing away the key, sentences for most crimes were actually shorter than they are now (murder a special case for obvious reasons). Prisoners were three to a cell with slopping out and no telly, mind. The trouble with populism in the criminal justice system is slowly following the Americans to very long sentences and yet more crime.Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
Long sentences make little to no difference as a deterrence.0 -
Nige is getting ever closer to requiring a Charlie Chaplin moustache.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
I see Austria has today joined Switzerland in putting mainland Spain on th naughty step for the virus. The UK was well ahead of the curve there.
0 -
That is because of his big ugly mush, they are laughing at him not with him.NerysHughes said:
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.0 -
They are asylum seekers escaping the horrors of war torn........er.......France.Mexicanpete said:
Nige is getting ever closer to requiring a Charlie Chaplin moustache.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
We need to ban all flights and travel from Spain.felix said:I see Austria has today joined Switzerland in putting mainland Spain on th naughty step for the virus. The UK was well ahead of the curve there.
0 -
Unless they decide he is criminally insane and chuck him in Norwegian Broadmoor, he would probably pop up as an "influencer" on 8 chan or similar.Nigelb said:
I'm not convinced he'll be released before his dotage - too dangerous.Pulpstar said:
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.Nigelb said:
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway).Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.0 -
This is suboptimal from England. At the moment that follow on target looks quite a long way off.0
-
Sections of society that are wary of authority means you will never get overall high numbers. It might (by way of an entirely made up scenario) be 90% in white middle England; 50% in the BAME community and 10% in the traveller community.RH1992 said:
Why is that relevant to the Bloomberg Brexit account, or is this an implied admission that the Bloomberg Brexit account just exists to bash Britain?Scott_xP said:
Test and Trace isn't perfect, but to some elements of the media, anything less than every single contact padlocked in their house with an armed guard for two weeks seems to be deemed a failure. 80% of contacts is commonly accepted as effective, even if there's room for improvement.
Or it could be that those who are self-employed white van man types refuse to go along with it, becaue they need the money/don't want to dob in their clients who pay them cash off the books. There was a doctor yesterday on the Jeremy Vine show saying he had to deal with a number of Covid-19 positive people who were refusing to self isolate, even after being told to do so by their GP and then at hospital. Those people aren't going to co-operate with test and trace.
0 -
He's a capable politician, I'm not sure how he looks matters.malcolmg said:
That is because of his big ugly mush, they are laughing at him not with him.NerysHughes said:
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I think there are parallels between Boris and Salmond. No matter if true or not, but Boris' adoption of a slightly shambolic style and Salmond's adoption of smoothy style are interesting contrasts.
Blair's adoption of the 'everyone's mate' is clearly to be avoided.
Late Edit: 'if true or not' - No matter the truth of what they say for these purposes.0 -
isam says "almost always"!No_Offence_Alan said:
John Major says hello!isam said:...
The bigger personality almost always winsMexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.0 -
"Selective"? Can you justify using that word?Mexicanpete said:
You have been promoting this notion for months, and I have disagreed with it for months despite your use of (selective?) polling material.isam said:...
The bigger personality almost always winsMexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Johnson is different. With Johnson it is not just a bigger personality. He has a magic which enough people find alluring. The rest of us find it tiresome. Perhaps over time, more will find it less appealing.
Starmer v. Sunak? The magic of Johnson has gone and it's anyone's game.
I used the IPSOS MORI "Has x got a lot of personality" question they have asked since 1979, whats selective about that? Were other pollsters showing different scores? By all means come back at me with them0 -
It's not inappropriate that Johnson looks, to borrow Spike Milligan's memorable phrase, like a sack of shit tied in the middle.Omnium said:
He's a capable politician, I'm not sure how he looks matters.malcolmg said:
That is because of his big ugly mush, they are laughing at him not with him.NerysHughes said:
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I think there are parallels between Boris and Salmond. No matter if true or not, but Boris' adoption of a slightly shambolic style and Salmond's adoption of smoothy style are interesting contrasts.
Blair's adoption of the 'everyone's mate' is clearly to be avoided.0 -
Can their actions in court (laughing at the description of PC Harper's death, for one) be classified as some kind of offence?TheScreamingEagles said:
I was speaking to someone who works for NOMS, they don't think Harper's killers will be released at the earliest opportunity.Pulpstar said:
Wonder if he'll get unpersoned on release like Venables and Thompson were here.Nigelb said:
Anders Breivik got 21 years (the maximum sentence in Norway).Pulpstar said:
Ken Clarke let Anthony Jeffs out after 20, which I think was too light for a cold blooded ambush of anyone let alone a police officer....isam said:
PC Harpers Mother was on Breakfast tv this morning (both of them, wearing different outfits!). Apparently some MPs have asked the AG to intervene due to the light sentence. The mother is trying to get "Andrew's Law" in place - minimum 20 years in prison for anyone killing a frontline worker (I think thats the phrase they used)CatMan said:
Wow. What they did was stupid, but that's just insane.Nigelb said:
The 35 years is a mandatory minimum (if they are found guilty). They potentially face 45 years to rest of life.Philip_Thompson said:
The sentences should be reversed.Gallowgate said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Philip_Thompson said:35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I think 20 years is appropriate here though, a whole life tariff is with the greatest feelings in the world difficult to justify when murder has not been proven.
Whole life for murder/20 years for manslaughter (And a real 20 years behind bars) would probably be seen as too soft by most people mind.
That said, he will in all likelihood not be released so soon.
Based on their illiteracy and lack of remorse alone the benchmark for their release has been raised.
They are going to have show a lot of improvement.
Plus they are a part of the traveller community, they are going to need a permanent place of residence to stay and be supervised when they are released.0 -
Many of us have looked that way, and I suspect almost all of us have felt that way.Nigelb said:
It's not inappropriate that Johnson looks, to borrow Spike Milligan's memorable phrase, like a sack of shit tied in the middle.Omnium said:
He's a capable politician, I'm not sure how he looks matters.malcolmg said:
That is because of his big ugly mush, they are laughing at him not with him.NerysHughes said:
I have watched non-political people when Johnson comes on the TV. He makes them smile and laugh. They will vote for him just for doing that.squareroot2 said:
Its not a case of do no wrong, its a case of the alternative they saw at the GE was much worse with or without Corbyn.Mexicanpete said:
Starmer is very dull! He was droning on in Wales today. All good, solid stuff, but straight over the heads of the great uneducated. They don't want to hear and see Bank Managerial competence, they want Boris to tell them, as he has again today, that Britain's test and trace is "world beating".ydoethur said:
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.felix said:
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....ydoethur said:
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.isam said:
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and CorbynSouthamObserver said:
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.bigjohnowls said:
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a GovernmentSouthamObserver said:
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.Malmesbury said:In some ways, not surprising -
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Oh dear
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I can't see, even with the greatest economic catastrophe on the horizon that Johnson's puppydog image and cheery bon homie won't still cut through.
You and I may think Johnson is a walking fiasco, but on here and in the real world the man can do no wrong to vast swathes of the public.
Starmer has to convince voters that Labour are a "New", "New Labour" , that the old ways are gone and his is a new broom sweep clean Party.
Cannot see it myself as its not, nor will it ever be true (Blair's "New Labour" was a mirage) and without a swathe of seats in Scotland, Starmer is marooned.
I think there are parallels between Boris and Salmond. No matter if true or not, but Boris' adoption of a slightly shambolic style and Salmond's adoption of smoothy style are interesting contrasts.
Blair's adoption of the 'everyone's mate' is clearly to be avoided.0 -
This Naseem looks swift and handy.
Amazing to think he could be bowling in a school team.0 -
Encouraging people to take the train into France and fly back from there?TheScreamingEagles said:
We need to ban all flights and travel from Spain.felix said:I see Austria has today joined Switzerland in putting mainland Spain on th naughty step for the virus. The UK was well ahead of the curve there.
0 -
Can I count on your vote?Nigelb said:
In a curious parallel, Republicans are canvassing door to door on a large scale for the coming election; Democrats are not doing so.SandraMc said:
I've just had a chugger come round for the local hospice. He wasn't wearing a mask. I resisted the temptation to ask if he was trying to drum up business.Gallowgate said:Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-joe-biden-campaign-door-knockers-391454
I'm not sure how that will play out.
If you're still alive that is.0
This discussion has been closed.