politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour seems to have forgotten how to ‘do’ Opposition

TrèsDifficile said:

Are they playing this Test in Hawaii? I keep getting a sort of Hawaiian feeling for some reason...

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Are they playing this Test in Hawaii? I keep getting a sort of Hawaiian feeling for some reason...

Not from me, I will never eat a Hawaiian pizza, because I'm a good Muslim boy.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Are they playing this Test in Hawaii? I keep getting a sort of Hawaiian feeling for some reason...

Not from me, I will never eat a Hawaiian pizza, because I'm a good Muslim boy.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Are they playing this Test in Hawaii? I keep getting a sort of Hawaiian feeling for some reason...

Not from me, I will never eat a Hawaiian pizza, because I'm a good Muslim boy.

The just-opened pizza place down the road (which must have cost a fortune judging by its size) is halal so it's "turkey ham" or "turkey bacon" on its toppings. Real pineapple though!

rottenborough said:

Sweden...


"if herd immunity hasn’t developed, where are all the sick people? "

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/08/04/how-bad-is-covid-really-a-swedish-doctors-perspective/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Are they playing this Test in Hawaii? I keep getting a sort of Hawaiian feeling for some reason...

Not from me, I will never eat a Hawaiian pizza, because I'm a good Muslim boy.

I suspect Domino's (or any other pizza joint) will allow you to replace the ham with chicken..

rottenborough said:

Sweden...


"if herd immunity hasn’t developed, where are all the sick people? "

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/08/04/how-bad-is-covid-really-a-swedish-doctors-perspective/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Nigelb said:

Six overs to the next new ball ...

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Are they playing this Test in Hawaii? I keep getting a sort of Hawaiian feeling for some reason...

Not from me, I will never eat a Hawaiian pizza, because I'm a good Muslim boy.

I suspect Domino's (or any other pizza joint) will allow you to replace the ham with chicken..

Last time I was forced to eat a pizza with pineapple on it I went for lamb meat.

This time I might go for a seafood delight pizza with pineapple.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

What do Muslims and Jews want to happen to the pigs?

I want the pigs to teach us how they achieve their 30 minute long orgasms.

I freely admit I do not speak for every Muslim or Jew.

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Are they playing this Test in Hawaii? I keep getting a sort of Hawaiian feeling for some reason...

Not from me, I will never eat a Hawaiian pizza, because I'm a good Muslim boy.

I suspect Domino's (or any other pizza joint) will allow you to replace the ham with chicken..

Last time I was forced to eat a pizza with pineapple on it I went for lamb meat.

This time I might go for a seafood delight pizza with pineapple.

That sounds utterly vile.

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

Six overs to the next new ball ...

Which concerns Labour and opposition how?

TheScreamingEagles said:

*Checks Notes*

I think I said I'd eat a pizza with pineapple on it if Biden wins Texas.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Joe Biden would be wise to pick Kamala Harris

https://www.ft.com/content/4d1a3453-f80c-4f29-8ec6-68b533bffc74?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9

Paywalled but I hope they are right because in the past hour I've topped up on the front two, Kamala Harris and Susan Rice. We need to tread carefully because Joe Biden is due to announce his choice in the next few days so no doubt there are several people who already know where his pin has landed.

Basically the piece runs through the top candidates, who we all know now, and then plums for Harris as she has experience running and is gutsy enough to take the fight to Trump in what promises to be the dirtiest election ever. Luce is worried that Rice hasn't been in the crossfire of running for office. She's a gamble. Biden may take the gamble because he doesn't want someone who will be running for 2024 within five minutes of being announced and who he really gets along with.

We await the result.

Hold on. It's Saturday. Tomorrow is Sunday. Why is the FT publishing now?

Susan Rice has never run for office but she must have learned something about campaigns from her time in the White House under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It's not like she is new to the limelight, so my feeling is this factor is overplayed.

rcs1000 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Joe Biden would be wise to pick Kamala Harris

https://www.ft.com/content/4d1a3453-f80c-4f29-8ec6-68b533bffc74?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9

Paywalled but I hope they are right because in the past hour I've topped up on the front two, Kamala Harris and Susan Rice. We need to tread carefully because Joe Biden is due to announce his choice in the next few days so no doubt there are several people who already know where his pin has landed.

Why would anyone put a single positive bet on in this market, when the rewards for laying are so much greater?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Joe Biden would be wise to pick Kamala Harris

https://www.ft.com/content/4d1a3453-f80c-4f29-8ec6-68b533bffc74?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9

Paywalled but I hope they are right because in the past hour I've topped up on the front two, Kamala Harris and Susan Rice. We need to tread carefully because Joe Biden is due to announce his choice in the next few days so no doubt there are several people who already know where his pin has landed.

Basically the piece runs through the top candidates, who we all know now, and then plums for Harris as she has experience running and is gutsy enough to take the fight to Trump in what promises to be the dirtiest election ever. Luce is worried that Rice hasn't been in the crossfire of running for office. She's a gamble. Biden may take the gamble because he doesn't want someone who will be running for 2024 within five minutes of being announced and who he really gets along with.

We await the result.

Hold on. It's Saturday. Tomorrow is Sunday. Why is the FT publishing now?

Susan Rice has never run for office but she must have learned something about campaigns from her time in the White House under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It's not like she is new to the limelight, so my feeling is this factor is overplayed.

MikeSmithson said:

Biden tells Fox News that he's made his decision

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

*Checks Notes*

I think I said I'd eat a pizza with pineapple on it if Biden wins Texas.

Well, you won’t need it if England win the test now.

Why couldn’t you keep quiet?!!!

We all know an England collapse is coming.

Coming? It’s here!

Broad, then Bess, then defeat.

My favourite England collapse?

From 147/4 to 150 all out, thanks largely due to a gritty single from Devon Malcolm.

malcolmg said:

Imperial Master Sunak jumps the queue leaving locals stranded!

The Conservative’s Islands Campaign continued today with Chancellor Sunak avoiding those nasty urban Scots and following the PM’s strategy, to avoid getting shouted at by locals.

Yes Bute were caught off-guard at first but rallied to send him back homeward to think again of becoming PM.

In true nasty party style, his motorcade jumped the queue leaving locals stranded. A source told us that his car had a bumper sticker reading: ‘Eat my dust, peasants!‘

There is of course irony in his visiting Rothesay, a placed which welcomed more Syrian refugees than his constituents would have allowed.

MikeSmithson said:

Biden tells Fox News that he's made his decision

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/xtophercook/status/1292015599632228352

Yuck

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Rexel56 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

The injustice on Thursday will be on an individual level, overall the marks will be the same as previous years, despite missing a term of work. It all depends on how well teachers have predicted and ranked their candidates.

Going with the teachers predictions may have inflated grades, but also would have filled the Universities for the autumn, helping their finances as well as minimising NEETS. Not a perfect solution but a pragmatic one.

Of course, if Gove and Cummings hadn't abolished AS levels, and modular exams a few years back, there would have been a much more solid and objective base for A level results...

The Universities will fill their places, from the top down... Oxbridge already saying they will lower entry requirements, dressed up as helping pupils from poorer areas... it’ll be the ex-polys and HE colleges without research that will really struggle... of course, a student from England doesn’t pay what a student from China would have done...

Sixth forms will use teacher grades when deciding entries, suspect Colleges will too...

The big losers will be the Tabatha and the Tarquins who were expecting a full set of nines or A*s, their parents having spent £££££££ school and/or tuition fees... denied by the wicked algorithm, Daddy and the School Headmaster have already instructed lawyers according to the Times this morning...

But that’s the point. If small cohorts are exempted from the algorithm, private schools will get what they predicted.

It’s bright children in weaker state schools who will be punished by this system. Like, for example, the children of voters in the so called Red Wall.

I doubt that many private schools have cohorts of less than 5. Many will be in the 5-15 bucket and most in the 15+ bucket

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

The first major test of Labour as an opposition seems likely to hit on Thursday.

A train wreck complete with a jumbo crash is incoming. It was foreseeable and happened because the government are completely useless, and overlooked obviously preferable alternatives.

If Kate Green can get a handle on that...

What happens Thursday?

A-level grades come out.

Having said they will use teacher grades, OFQUAL have now admitted they are judging by past school performance, as the SQA did.

But it's even better than that, because they don't have as good a data set. All the exams are too new. So according to leaks from yesterday, what is going to happen is:

1) School cohorts of below five - teacher assessment alone

2) Cohorts of five to fifteen - mix of teacher assessment and this discredited algorithm

3) Cohorts of 15+ - algorithm alone.

Which means the following:

1) 40% of grades are not going to match teacher predictions. That's far higher than the 10% gap that was leaked earlier.

2) State schools - with large cohorts - get decided by computer modelling based on at most four comparable sets of data (more usually two or three). Private schools will get based on teacher assessment. Guess which one is going to get clobbered for downgrading? Hint - not the private schools.

3) Appeals were previously not allowed. Now they are being allowed. They will only be allowed via schools. However, that may change again.

4) Expect to see this challenged through the courts

5) Expect the exam system in October to implode

6) Expect Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove to be blamed, as they were responsible for setting up both the new exams and the current iteration of OFQUAL and the exam boards.

7) Expect utter chaos as the government tries to blame teachers for providing evidence they decided to ignore.

8) Expect actual student riots and the unions to ballot their members over strike action.

And all this could have been avoided if that brain dead moron we call our PM had thought to ask schools to send in samples of work they had graded at A, B, C, D etc for each subject so some standardisation could have been done on that basis.

This is going to be bad. You thought the SQA was a shambles? This is worse.

Oh - and GCSEs are going to be worse.

More here:

https://www.tes.com/news/GCSE-results-2020-teacher-grades-ignored

TSE pointed this story out. But the implications are absolutely dire. You could easily see every exam board, OFQUAL and the DfE consumed by this.

You'd better hope that English teachers haven't exposed themselves as cheats and liars by vastly over predicting grades as their Scottish counterparts did.

How will we know, given they haven’t used our data?

The point is, in the absence of a significant past dataset, the ‘statistical modelling’ they have used will be utterly meaningless. These grades will have as much validity as a Cummings press release.

And that will not only cause a furore this year, but will undermine exams going forward. Because how can you have confidence in a system run by people as mind-bendingly stupid and ignorant as this?

I assume there will be three sets of numbers available:

(1) The grades from previous years
(2) The teacher predicted grades
(3) The grades awarded this year

If (3) is higher than or close to (1) then complaints will look stupid.
If (2) is much higher than (1) then teachers will have exposed themselves as cheats and liars.

For fuck’s sake.

THERE ARE NO GRADES FROM PREVIOUS YEARS. DUE TO EXAM REFORMS ANY GRADES FROM BEFORE LAST YEAR ARE NOT COMPARABLE.

I am sure I have said this before.

Which means statistical modelling cannot be used.

But it has been.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

What do Muslims and Jews want to happen to the pigs?

I want the pigs to teach us how they achieve their 30 minute long orgasms.

I freely admit I do not speak for every Muslim or Jew.

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

What do Muslims and Jews want to happen to the pigs?

I want the pigs to teach us how they achieve their 30 minute long orgasms.

I freely admit I do not speak for every Muslim or Jew.

Reminds me of an old joke:

An elderly Rabbi and Priest are sitting on a park bench staring wistfully across the park.

The priest asks the Rabbi, "tell me old friend in confidence, did you ever break the religious rules"

The Rabbi replies: "well, I have to confess, when I was a young man, I did let temptation get the better of me. I had roast pork once, out of curiosity" "tell me, did you ever break your vows?"

The priest "Well once, I did have a young lady infatuated with me. We got to know each other well, and one night, I did break my vow of chastity"

They paused, and stared into the distance. Eventually the priest spoke again "It's much better than pork, isn't it?"

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

Pulpstar said:

Drop Archer next test I think for Crawley

ydoethur said:

Pulpstar said:

Drop Archer next test I think for Crawley

Whoever misses out, Foakes or even Bracey comes in.

That would have been a much easier win had Buttler not fluffed so often.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://medium.com/@pauladrianrichards/labour-is-at-war-and-starmer-will-decide-who-wins-19821d6c89d8

Very good.

The country is watching and Starmer has an absolute open goal to make Labour electable again and show the public it has really changed. Expelling Corbyn and others would frankly be the best thing to do, if indeed they are implicated by the EHRC.

MarqueeMark said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://medium.com/@pauladrianrichards/labour-is-at-war-and-starmer-will-decide-who-wins-19821d6c89d8

Very good.

The country is watching and Starmer has an absolute open goal to make Labour electable again and show the public it has really changed. Expelling Corbyn and others would frankly be the best thing to do, if indeed they are implicated by the EHRC.

If Corbyn is implicated by the EHRC report - and maybe even expelled from the Party - then the question Starmer has to answer is how could he sit beside him in the Shadow Cabinet for three years whilst this was going on?

Lets see how his numbers hold up against that line of questioning - and his answers. I personally don't see how he has an acceptable answer.

rcs1000 said:

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Ed M became the leader too early.

If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

Spare me any violins.

I don't think primogeniture an appropriate reason to chose a party leader, or indeed anything else. Speaking as a second child!

You were second.

Suck it up, loser.

TrèsDifficile said:

What do Muslims and Jews want to happen to the pigs?

justin124 said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

OldKingCole said:

kinabalu said:

MJW said:

kle4 said:

My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.

Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.

Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
Milliband should have stayed as leader.

I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.

EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different.

lol - as if.

But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".

But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.

It's possible you arrived at this perception uninfluenced by the barrage of media messaging along exactly these lines but I am skeptical. EM was by any measure less silver-spooned than the man he ran against and the man in number 10 now. Both of them are the epitome of what you describe in the last para.

But Cameron and Boris were more talented/dishonest as politicians

As was Blair before him.

So he lacked the style and he lacked the substance which Thatcher or Brown revelled in.

Nor did he have the 'everyman' appeal which Major had.

Is insipid the best description of EdM ?

Many in Labour must have thought and so the turn to Corbyn.

For example, I think Boris Johnson is a frivolous charlatan out for himself only. But there are millions of suckers out there who think he's a breath of fresh air, a very human politician who is relatable, dynamic, gets things done and tells it like it is. As long as I'm outnumbered by the suckers their perception trumps mine.

Just like Trump - or the Kray twins!

kinabalu said:

justin124 said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

OldKingCole said:

kinabalu said:

MJW said:

kle4 said:

My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.

Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.

Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
Milliband should have stayed as leader.

I liked - and like - him but I think he had to go. That 2015 result was such a terrible blow.

EdM's problem was that he never seemed interested beyond the 'ordinary people' of Dartmouth Park. Or as I think Sandy described it 'talking to the top 10% about the bottom 10%'.

Now if only there had been some intelligent lefty who had come from the North but now lived in Hampstead who could have taken EdM to the restaurant in BHS Doncaster then things might have been different.

lol - as if.

But seriously, he was demonized as "geeky" and "red ed" and "wimpy" and all of that, total nonsense, but it seeped in - as your comment testifies. A shame. Would have been a good PM probably. But all substance no style is the very opposite of what we seem to value these days - e.g. the ghastly "Boris".

But I think EdM lacked substance as well.

Or perhaps more generally lacked interest in or empathy towards or relevance to the average person in the average constituency.

Nor was he a skilled enough politician (or dishonest enough person) to be able to fake it.

He was, I suspect, someone who had suffered by being given too much and too much too soon without having to learn and experience things himself.

It's possible you arrived at this perception uninfluenced by the barrage of media messaging along exactly these lines but I am skeptical. EM was by any measure less silver-spooned than the man he ran against and the man in number 10 now. Both of them are the epitome of what you describe in the last para.

But Cameron and Boris were more talented/dishonest as politicians

As was Blair before him.

So he lacked the style and he lacked the substance which Thatcher or Brown revelled in.

Nor did he have the 'everyman' appeal which Major had.

Is insipid the best description of EdM ?

Many in Labour must have thought and so the turn to Corbyn.

For example, I think Boris Johnson is a frivolous charlatan out for himself only. But there are millions of suckers out there who think he's a breath of fresh air, a very human politician who is relatable, dynamic, gets things done and tells it like it is. As long as I'm outnumbered by the suckers their perception trumps mine.

Just like Trump - or the Kray twins!

Johnson is not like Trump.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://medium.com/@pauladrianrichards/labour-is-at-war-and-starmer-will-decide-who-wins-19821d6c89d8

Very good.

The country is watching and Starmer has an absolute open goal to make Labour electable again and show the public it has really changed. Expelling Corbyn and others would frankly be the best thing to do, if indeed they are implicated by the EHRC.

Expelling Corbyn would be damn stupid. It's not Corbyn or even the Corbynites who are the problem. It's the Scouse SWP tankies Neil Kinnock threw out who were readmitted by Ed Miliband.

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://medium.com/@pauladrianrichards/labour-is-at-war-and-starmer-will-decide-who-wins-19821d6c89d8

Very good.

The country is watching and Starmer has an absolute open goal to make Labour electable again and show the public it has really changed. Expelling Corbyn and others would frankly be the best thing to do, if indeed they are implicated by the EHRC.

If Corbyn is implicated by the EHRC report - and maybe even expelled from the Party - then the question Starmer has to answer is how could he sit beside him in the Shadow Cabinet for three years whilst this was going on?

Lets see how his numbers hold up against that line of questioning - and his answers. I personally don't see how he has an acceptable answer.

Whether Corbyn is expelled or not - and I severely doubt he will be or that the report will be so blunt as to make that an easy option - Starmer would of course face that question, and it is a fair one.

Nevertheless, he will be judged more on his actions as Leader than anything else. If he does a good job and shows good leadership, people will look past that he served Corbyn faithfully for all that time. If people like you or want to support you they will look past obvious reasons they should not, or reasons they should be more wary.

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

Wrong then, wrong now. He's just too old, that's all. Not to win - he will - but to be a strong president. I back him for one reason only. The obvious reason.

You’re going to make money?

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Fuck me.

So @Nigelb @TSE where do we meet for our socially distanced dish of pineapple pizza?

@Big_G_NorthWales thank you for the opportunity you offered yesterday for me to positively hex England. I’ve still got it...

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I‘m quite happy to postpone until the pandemic is over.
Solitary pineapple pizza is just too depressing.

Omnium said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://medium.com/@pauladrianrichards/labour-is-at-war-and-starmer-will-decide-who-wins-19821d6c89d8

Very good.

The country is watching and Starmer has an absolute open goal to make Labour electable again and show the public it has really changed. Expelling Corbyn and others would frankly be the best thing to do, if indeed they are implicated by the EHRC.

Expelling Corbyn would be damn stupid. It's not Corbyn or even the Corbynites who are the problem. It's the Scouse SWP tankies Neil Kinnock threw out who were readmitted by Ed Miliband.

Corbyn is 100% the problem. A political mantra that is based on 19th century ideas isn't going to work.

Blair's New Labour is the only future Labour have. Not because of him or anyone else, but simply that they can't bang on with the ideas of well over a hundred years ago. They weren't good ideas then, and they're rubbish now.

Starmer has, I think, worked this out. He's trying to stop Labour being crap, and is biding his time with regards to positive moves.

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Ed M became the leader too early.

If he'd become the leader now he'd likely have done better.

He didn't "become" leader, he actively went up against his own brother, when he could have waited.

Spare me any violins.

I don't think primogeniture an appropriate reason to chose a party leader, or indeed anything else. Speaking as a second child!

You were second.

Suck it up, loser.

I’m surprised that @ydoethur doesnt post about the inherent unfairness of primogeniture more. It can have a material impact on an individual’s opportunities and range of potential outcomes

Nothing to declare? In any case, the real unfairness is height. Tall people are overrepresented in political and commercial leadership roles, as well as consuming more than their fair share of Earth's precious natural resources.

Sure - I’ve had a successful and well paid career. My expected lifetime earnings are the square root of my older brother’s inheritance.

I think that's one of the big differences between the middle class and the upper class/aristocracy. If your family was more middle class you'd get ~half

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Omnium said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://medium.com/@pauladrianrichards/labour-is-at-war-and-starmer-will-decide-who-wins-19821d6c89d8

Very good.

The country is watching and Starmer has an absolute open goal to make Labour electable again and show the public it has really changed. Expelling Corbyn and others would frankly be the best thing to do, if indeed they are implicated by the EHRC.

Expelling Corbyn would be damn stupid. It's not Corbyn or even the Corbynites who are the problem. It's the Scouse SWP tankies Neil Kinnock threw out who were readmitted by Ed Miliband.

Corbyn is 100% the problem. A political mantra that is based on 19th century ideas isn't going to work.

Blair's New Labour is the only future Labour have. Not because of him or anyone else, but simply that they can't bang on with the ideas of well over a hundred years ago. They weren't good ideas then, and they're rubbish now.

Starmer has, I think, worked this out. He's trying to stop Labour being crap, and is biding his time with regards to positive moves.

Labour's immediate problem is that Boris shot so many of their foxes, when he won in 2019 on Labour's 2017 platform. Boris won by being a better Corbyn, not by being a better Cameron or May.

Omnium said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Omnium said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://medium.com/@pauladrianrichards/labour-is-at-war-and-starmer-will-decide-who-wins-19821d6c89d8

Very good.

The country is watching and Starmer has an absolute open goal to make Labour electable again and show the public it has really changed. Expelling Corbyn and others would frankly be the best thing to do, if indeed they are implicated by the EHRC.

Expelling Corbyn would be damn stupid. It's not Corbyn or even the Corbynites who are the problem. It's the Scouse SWP tankies Neil Kinnock threw out who were readmitted by Ed Miliband.

Corbyn is 100% the problem. A political mantra that is based on 19th century ideas isn't going to work.

Blair's New Labour is the only future Labour have. Not because of him or anyone else, but simply that they can't bang on with the ideas of well over a hundred years ago. They weren't good ideas then, and they're rubbish now.

Starmer has, I think, worked this out. He's trying to stop Labour being crap, and is biding his time with regards to positive moves.

Labour's immediate problem is that Boris shot so many of their foxes, when he won in 2019 on Labour's 2017 platform. Boris won by being a better Corbyn, not by being a better Cameron or May.

He was perhaps a better EdM. Boris is not and I don't imagine can be anything like Corbyn.