Polling for Trump v Biden is following almost exactly the same pattern as for the 2018 Midterms – po
Polling for Trump v Biden is following almost exactly the same pattern as for the 2018 Midterms – politicalbetting.com
One of the striking features of the pattern of current Trump v Biden polling is how much it looks like the main polling for the Midterms in 2018. Just like that for the White House race now the Democratic lead in generic congressional polling followed a pretty contant 7-8% in the polling averages. As it turned out the 2018 surveys undershot the Dem final total by more than one point.
Comments
-
Test0
-
Quiet hear this morning.
New web design looks good. Thanks to RCS, it's no small task makes such a significant change.
I see Boris coasted to an easy win over Internal Market Bill. Only the Lords might cause him some grief.0 -
Third. Or second.0
-
From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.1 -
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
1 -
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.0 -
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.0 -
I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.7 -
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.1 -
There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.2 -
I'm not talking about making good decisions. I'm talking about communication. Ed's speech last night could be described as "barnstorming". Annelise Dodds does not have that in her.OldKingCole said:
There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.1 -
Conference season soon, and it would be interesting to see how any of the front bench teams holds a crowd. It will be hard to judge online though.tlg86 said:
I'm not talking about making good decisions. I'm talking about communication. Ed's speech last night could be described as "barnstorming". Annelise Dodds does not have that in her.OldKingCole said:
There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.0 -
How dull you have to be, to be shown up as dull by Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper???tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.5 -
There were few who thought him a starterOldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
Many who thought themselves smarter.
But he ended PM,
CH and OM
An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.5 -
0
-
Am I right in thinking Miliband is the only member of Brown’s cabinet still in the SC?Foxy said:
I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.0 -
Why does it keep saying "Comments are closed"?1
-
For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.0
-
And EOTHO, and the grants for the self employed earning under £50k, and the bounce back loans. All delivered with an efficiency that one does not normally associate with the UK government. I accept that politically he will be tested when he has to start clawing some of this largesse back but he is by far the outstanding member of the cabinet this year.OldKingCole said:
There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Patel is not my cup of tea but she has also been quite effective. But with Ashworth, Reeves and now Miliband (again) the balance between the cabinet and the shadow cabinet is closer than it was throughout the sad Corbyn era.2 -
We are making a lot of adjustments at the moment with the design as can be seen. One of the reasons why I'm making the first comment is to get over that comments aren't closed.MarqueeMark said:Why does it keep saying "Comments are closed"?
0 -
We are getting to TMay territory with that.MarqueeMark said:
How dull you have to be, to be shown up as dull by Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper???tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.0 -
On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/
The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.0 -
On a "watch the share, not the lead" basis its hard to see past Biden posting a 49.7% average share.
If that continues to rise then he is surely next President elect.
Clinton's leads 4 years ago were with a much lower share of the vote - and then undecideds/others jumped to Trump. There are far fewer undecideds/others this year.0 -
Fair comment!DavidL said:
And EOTHO, and the grants for the self employed earning under £50k, and the bounce back loans. All delivered with an efficiency that one does not normally associate with the UK government. I accept that politically he will be tested when he has to start clawing some of this largesse back but he is by far the outstanding member of the cabinet this year.OldKingCole said:
There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Patel is not my cup of tea but she has also been quite effective. But with Ashworth, Reeves and now Miliband (again) the balance between the cabinet and the shadow cabinet is closer than it was throughout the sad Corbyn era.0 -
A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.DavidL said:On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/
The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.0 -
Yes, I think so. There needed to be a new generation, but you don't win anything with kids.ydoethur said:
Am I right in thinking Miliband is the only member of Brown’s cabinet still in the SC?Foxy said:
I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.0 -
Lord Falconer is shadow attorney General (unless he's resigned of course).ydoethur said:
Am I right in thinking Miliband is the only member of Brown’s cabinet still in the SC?Foxy said:
I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.3 -
More likely an attempt to manage the factions within Labour, keeping some left wingers in place and avoiding being accused of bringing back the old moderate guard en massetlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.1 -
The base is not the issue. That is with him whatever happens. He won in 2016 on the back of independents and low (compared to 2012) turnout among Democrats in key swing states. Voter suppression and compliant courts will help a lot with the latter, so it's probably all about those independents.DavidL said:On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/
The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.
0 -
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
3 -
The Tories are all in with Johnson now, just as the Republicans are with Trump in the US. Having lied to the electorate about the Withdrawal Agreement and now having rejected the rule of law, they desperately need an FTA with the the EU - or for No Deal to be the glorious opportunity Johnson has told us it will be.Pulpstar said:For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.
3 -
It sees you coming?MarqueeMark said:Why does it keep saying "Comments are closed"?
3 -
No I think that the base is the issue. Trump managed to motivate a lot of traditional non voters to vote for him. It was very similar to what the Brexit campaign achieved here. If he can't repeat that those states that he squeezed by a couple of percent are gone. In contrast the classic Dem supporter is a lot less tempted to vote self-indulgently for some third party non entity to make a point this year.SouthamObserver said:
The base is not the issue. That is with him whatever happens. He won in 2016 on the back of independents and low (compared to 2012) turnout among Democrats in key swing states. Voter suppression and compliant courts will help a lot with the latter, so it's probably all about those independents.DavidL said:On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/
The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.3 -
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.0 -
Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.1 -
Biden is just not that interesting although I suspect we will hear more about his son before this is over. Trump is very interesting, and not in a good way.Mike_Smithson said:
A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.DavidL said:On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/
The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.
I am not sure how Trump turns this around. Even Biden being incoherent has been discounted because, let's face it, he always has been. Voter suppression will help but he needs more. A vaccine break through? Maybe, but time is short.0 -
Oh there is - simply because the calibre of person who 50 years ago would work to become an MP won't go near politics nowadays...Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.1 -
The same Patel that’s lying through her teeth about testing on the BBC JUST NOW.Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.0 -
YEStlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.0 -
He needs some sort of black swan event that drives voters away from Biden.DavidL said:
Biden is just not that interesting although I suspect we will hear more about his son before this is over. Trump is very interesting, and not in a good way.Mike_Smithson said:
A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.DavidL said:On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/
The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.
I am not sure how Trump turns this around. Even Biden being incoherent has been discounted because, let's face it, he always has been. Voter suppression will help but he needs more. A vaccine break through? Maybe, but time is short.
Traditionally both candidates improve on their polling share from here. With Biden's very high share he is recording I would put it at very odds on that he will win an absolute majority of the popular vote, rather than just a plurality. Very hard for Trump to overcome that.1 -
"Planet Earth to Philip Thompson, are you reading me?"Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.1 -
Yes at the moment, not done anything except give money away.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.1 -
Anybody can dole out barrowloads of money, we will see when he has to balance the books and who he robs to do it. Clue, it will not be the toffs that pay for it.DavidL said:
And EOTHO, and the grants for the self employed earning under £50k, and the bounce back loans. All delivered with an efficiency that one does not normally associate with the UK government. I accept that politically he will be tested when he has to start clawing some of this largesse back but he is by far the outstanding member of the cabinet this year.OldKingCole said:
There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Patel is not my cup of tea but she has also been quite effective. But with Ashworth, Reeves and now Miliband (again) the balance between the cabinet and the shadow cabinet is closer than it was throughout the sad Corbyn era.1 -
You are easily impressed.tlg86 said:
Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.0 -
Was Labour "all in" with Corbyn? When the failures became too much for even Labour to bear the tide washed over him and, hey presto, a new dull but allegedly competent Labour appeared. From oh Jeremy to Jeremy who in one easy moment.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories are all in with Johnson now, just as the Republicans are with Trump in the US. Having lied to the electorate about the Withdrawal Agreement and now having rejected the rule of law, they desperately need an FTA with the the EU - or for No Deal to be the glorious opportunity Johnson has told us it will be.Pulpstar said:For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.
So it will be with Boris and indeed almost all politicians. Trump too will pass and it will be for the next generation of Republicans to restore their party.3 -
You need to be in a truss, and get a few patels on the head to knock some sense into you. You really are not the full shilling.Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.0 -
You could almost be writing about UK GE2024.SouthamObserver said:
The base is not the issue. That is with him whatever happens. He won in 2016 on the back of independents and low (compared to 2012) turnout among Democrats in key swing states. Voter suppression and compliant courts will help a lot with the latter, so it's probably all about those independents.DavidL said:On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/
The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.0 -
The BilL was going to be opened by Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary. Milliband is Shadow Business Secretary. Unsurprising that he should do it.Foxy said:
I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
0 -
You preferred when Grayling, Leadsom and Liam Fox were in the Cabinet?malcolmg22 said:
You need to be in a truss, and get a few patels on the head to knock some sense into you. You really are not the full shilling.Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
Funny I don't seem to recall you singing their praises at the time.0 -
I don't think Miliband is that great, but he's far more accomplished than Dodds.malcolmg22 said:
You are easily impressed.tlg86 said:
Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.3 -
It was under Osborne.malcolmg22 said:
Anybody can dole out barrowloads of money, we will see when he has to balance the books and who he robs to do it. Clue, it will not be the toffs that pay for it.DavidL said:
And EOTHO, and the grants for the self employed earning under £50k, and the bounce back loans. All delivered with an efficiency that one does not normally associate with the UK government. I accept that politically he will be tested when he has to start clawing some of this largesse back but he is by far the outstanding member of the cabinet this year.OldKingCole said:
There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Patel is not my cup of tea but she has also been quite effective. But with Ashworth, Reeves and now Miliband (again) the balance between the cabinet and the shadow cabinet is closer than it was throughout the sad Corbyn era.
And actually, I don't agree. Our government is not even good at doling out barrowloads of money. Look at the chaos and inefficiency that came with WFTC as an example. Sunak has kept some of the Scottish economy alive despite Sturgeon's best efforts. She's not finished yet though.1 -
Labour will pay the price for Corbyn for many long years yet. I suspect that the Tories will not want to remind the electorate that in September 2020 as a pandemic raged and the economy tanked, they decided to abandon the rule of law to pick a fight that ended in the UK having no trade deal with its largest export market. On the other hand, if they do get a deal, then they may get away with it, though in those circumstances it's hard to see how the ERG will be anything less than furious and the DUP once more betrayed.DavidL said:
Was Labour "all in" with Corbyn? When the failures became too much for even Labour to bear the tide washed over him and, hey presto, a new dull but allegedly competent Labour appeared. From oh Jeremy to Jeremy who in one easy moment.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories are all in with Johnson now, just as the Republicans are with Trump in the US. Having lied to the electorate about the Withdrawal Agreement and now having rejected the rule of law, they desperately need an FTA with the the EU - or for No Deal to be the glorious opportunity Johnson has told us it will be.Pulpstar said:For all Boris' woes, the Tories are in much better shape than the GOP right now.
So it will be with Boris and indeed almost all politicians. Trump too will pass and it will be for the next generation of Republicans to restore their party.
0 -
So was HIGNFY's tub of lard.tlg86 said:
I don't think Miliband is that great, but he's far more accomplished than Dodds.malcolmg22 said:
You are easily impressed.tlg86 said:
Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.0 -
I think that is right. The "last minute substitute" here was Boris not Miliband. But he was good, there's no denying it.Cyclefree said:
The BilL was going to be opened by Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary. Milliband is Shadow Business Secretary. Unsurprising that he should do it.Foxy said:
I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.0 -
Absolutely. A party that abandons the rue of law is not one that you can be confident is committed to free and fair elections. Voter suppression is almost guaranteed for 2024 here in the UK.Mexicanpete said:
You could almost be writing about UK GE2024.SouthamObserver said:
The base is not the issue. That is with him whatever happens. He won in 2016 on the back of independents and low (compared to 2012) turnout among Democrats in key swing states. Voter suppression and compliant courts will help a lot with the latter, so it's probably all about those independents.DavidL said:On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/
The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.
1 -
Replacing faulty old batteries with more faulty old batteries won't make your battery powered device work any better.Philip_Thompson said:
You preferred when Grayling, Leadsom and Liam Fox were in the Cabinet?malcolmg22 said:
You need to be in a truss, and get a few patels on the head to knock some sense into you. You really are not the full shilling.Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
Funny I don't seem to recall you singing their praises at the time.0 -
Some interesting triumphant guff on here last night. Of course the second reading would pass - the interesting big is the committee stage and then how the government proposes to get it past the House of Lords. Minimal chance of this becoming law in time for them to make use of it.
Nor do they need to pass a law allowing them to break the law in a limited and very specific way. Just do whatever they want how they want and have Philip/HYUFD/BluestBlue et al say yebbut they have a majority or whatever. Nor does the measure in question have to have anything to do with what they say it is - Shagger drooled on about GB to NI whilst promoting a bill that explicitly didn't cover that.
So a nice convention they are trying to set. Police arrested you and kept you locked up without charge for 3 weeks? Its cos the EU are trying to remove the common arrest warrant. A minister accidentally sits next to a developer at a £3k a plate party dinner and accidentally saves the developer millions? Its because the EU are trying to stop us fishing or something. And so on.
Its definitely not a concern that Her Majesty's Government no longer understands the laws it passes only months before, sees no need to obey the law, and is happy to say black is white. Absolutely no reason for anyone - especially alleged conservatives - to consider the impact that a lying lawless government of the present or the future could have upon their lives citing this precedent. No concern at all...6 -
On Miliband 2.0:malcolmg22 said:
You are easily impressed.tlg86 said:
Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
"Labour MPs hooted and honked. Tories, meanwhile, just looked glum. Duffed up by the school swot. I’m not sure which side of the House was the more surprised."
(Telegraph parliamentary sketch)0 -
On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-1 -
Ed M isn't even in BF's list of next leader, whereas David is.0
-
It is about time we realised the downside of picking people with the X factor but little talent or ability. It’s a lesson being played out in front of us.tlg86 said:
Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.0 -
Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.0 -
I think Johnson underestimated him.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.0 -
Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.Philip_Thompson said:On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-3 -
It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.2
-
He’s not the greatest orator, but he was very good indeed yesterday.tlg86 said:
I'm not talking about making good decisions. I'm talking about communication. Ed's speech last night could be described as "barnstorming". Annelise Dodds does not have that in her.OldKingCole said:
There's a cricket term 'flat-track bully'; a player who can do well on an easy wicket but not otherwise. Sunak has done well with the furlough scheme, but IMHO anyway, not been particularly outstanding otherwise.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
And Johnson made him look like Demosthenes.1 -
If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?DavidL said:
Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.Philip_Thompson said:On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-
0 -
In Truss we have a fantastic Trade Secretary who is competently getting on with the job, just signing a notable trade deal with Japan that went beyond the EU deal that it is replacing when it comes to data and servces. Her predecessor Liam Fox achieved nothing in years in that role and spent too much of his time worrying about America rather than rolling over deals we already had or rapidly agreeable new deals.IanB2 said:
Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.0 -
That makes sense. I havent been following too closely.Cyclefree said:
The BilL was going to be opened by Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary. Milliband is Shadow Business Secretary. Unsurprising that he should do it.Foxy said:
I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
I do think that Keir needs a bit of a reshuffle if some of his new faces remain invisible, and he should use Rayner more. Apart from anything else, for internal party management. She is the potential queen over the water for the Left.0 -
I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.SouthamObserver said:It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.
0 -
Starmer's dentist appointment isolation was very conveniently timed.DavidL said:
I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.SouthamObserver said:It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.
0 -
Oh but they do. Pb Tories have all condemned Boris's behaviour, even if only when carried out by President Trump.RochdalePioneers said:Some interesting triumphant guff on here last night. Of course the second reading would pass - the interesting big is the committee stage and then how the government proposes to get it past the House of Lords. Minimal chance of this becoming law in time for them to make use of it.
Nor do they need to pass a law allowing them to break the law in a limited and very specific way. Just do whatever they want how they want and have Philip/HYUFD/BluestBlue et al say yebbut they have a majority or whatever. Nor does the measure in question have to have anything to do with what they say it is - Shagger drooled on about GB to NI whilst promoting a bill that explicitly didn't cover that.
So a nice convention they are trying to set. Police arrested you and kept you locked up without charge for 3 weeks? Its cos the EU are trying to remove the common arrest warrant. A minister accidentally sits next to a developer at a £3k a plate party dinner and accidentally saves the developer millions? Its because the EU are trying to stop us fishing or something. And so on.
Its definitely not a concern that Her Majesty's Government no longer understands the laws it passes only months before, sees no need to obey the law, and is happy to say black is white. Absolutely no reason for anyone - especially alleged conservatives - to consider the impact that a lying lawless government of the present or the future could have upon their lives citing this precedent. No concern at all...0 -
Indeed, Dalton Harris, Matt Terry, Louisa, James Arthur, where are they now?IanB2 said:
It is about time we realised the downside of picking people with the X factor but little talent or ability. It’s a lesson being played out in front of us.tlg86 said:
Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.0 -
I agree that there needs to be some changes at some point, but they won't happen for a while. Dodds has definitely been a disappointment. Miliband made a great speech yesterday, but was up against a joke of a man.Foxy said:
That makes sense. I havent been following too closely.Cyclefree said:
The BilL was going to be opened by Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary. Milliband is Shadow Business Secretary. Unsurprising that he should do it.Foxy said:
I think the point was to have fresh faces rather than the same old ones, but none seem to have ave caught the eye.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Perhaps the most telling thing about using Ed Miliband is that Angela Rayner wasn't trusted with the job.
I do think that Keir needs a bit of a reshuffle if some of his new faces remain invisible, and he should use Rayner more. Apart from anything else, for internal party management. She is the potential queen over the water for the Left.
0 -
A blood test at GPs could tell who is going to only get mild covid rather than something more serious.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/14/coronavirus-death-rate-could-halved-new-blood-biomarker-tests/
Possibly available next spring. Sounds a better bet than this landing on the moon nonsense.0 -
Equally, you should never assume that someone who is dull is also competent.IanB2 said:
It is about time we realised the downside of picking people with the X factor but little talent or ability. It’s a lesson being played out in front of us.tlg86 said:
Again, I'm not talking about talent or ability. Sunak was clearly one to watch - indeed, some people on here have money on him for next PM at very long odds (sadly, I'm not one of them) - and that's got nothing to do with whether or not he makes good decisions. He's got the X Factor. Dodds doesn't.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.2 -
Car crash interview with Patel own BBC this morning. Sounded to me as though she only answered one question, to the effect that if she saw people breaking the rule of six should would report them.IanB2 said:
Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
0 -
Then why did he only decide to lead once Starmer announced he would not be able to take part in the debate?DavidL said:
I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.SouthamObserver said:It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.
0 -
Well paid, more than slightly arrogant, extremely white, old men (in very large part), apparently. They just know better.SouthamObserver said:
If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?DavidL said:
Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.Philip_Thompson said:On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-1 -
I think the word is hubris. Pride > FallSouthamObserver said:
Then why did he only decide to lead once Starmer announced he would not be able to take part in the debate?DavidL said:
I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.SouthamObserver said:It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.
0 -
You mean the law, don't you?DavidL said:
Well paid, more than slightly arrogant, extremely white, old men (in very large part), apparently. They just know better.SouthamObserver said:
If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?DavidL said:
Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.Philip_Thompson said:On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-
0 -
At a time when there is clearly an acute testing shortage with the reopening of schools, why are we not using pooled testing, which would seem to be almost ideally matched to monitoring infection in schools ?3
-
PB Tories have - but they oppose this government. I am speaking about people who claim to be Tories but are explicitly not Conservatives: BluestBlue, Philip, HYUFD.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Oh but they do. Pb Tories have all condemned Boris's behaviour, even if only when carried out by President Trump.RochdalePioneers said:Some interesting triumphant guff on here last night. Of course the second reading would pass - the interesting big is the committee stage and then how the government proposes to get it past the House of Lords. Minimal chance of this becoming law in time for them to make use of it.
Nor do they need to pass a law allowing them to break the law in a limited and very specific way. Just do whatever they want how they want and have Philip/HYUFD/BluestBlue et al say yebbut they have a majority or whatever. Nor does the measure in question have to have anything to do with what they say it is - Shagger drooled on about GB to NI whilst promoting a bill that explicitly didn't cover that.
So a nice convention they are trying to set. Police arrested you and kept you locked up without charge for 3 weeks? Its cos the EU are trying to remove the common arrest warrant. A minister accidentally sits next to a developer at a £3k a plate party dinner and accidentally saves the developer millions? Its because the EU are trying to stop us fishing or something. And so on.
Its definitely not a concern that Her Majesty's Government no longer understands the laws it passes only months before, sees no need to obey the law, and is happy to say black is white. Absolutely no reason for anyone - especially alleged conservatives - to consider the impact that a lying lawless government of the present or the future could have upon their lives citing this precedent. No concern at all...0 -
To be honest I am not sure of the sequencing. Are you?SouthamObserver said:
Then why did he only decide to lead once Starmer announced he would not be able to take part in the debate?DavidL said:
I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.SouthamObserver said:It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.
0 -
Kids having an impromptu kickabout in the park after school are only breaking the law in a limited and very specific way to protect GB to NI food exports.OldKingCole said:
Car crash interview with Patel own BBC this morning. Sounded to me as though she only answered one question, to the effect that if she saw people breaking the rule of six should would report them.IanB2 said:
Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.Philip_Thompson said:
There isn't a dearth of talent.IanB2 said:
Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.tlg86 said:
You think Sunak is a non-entity?Nigelb said:
Bit like Boris, then.tlg86 said:
Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.OldKingCole said:
Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.tlg86 said:From previous thread:
I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.
Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.
Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
But hopefully not incompetent.
Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.1 -
I'm a Conservative but not a conservative.RochdalePioneers said:
PB Tories have - but they oppose this government. I am speaking about people who claim to be Tories but are explicitly not Conservatives: BluestBlue, Philip, HYUFD.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Oh but they do. Pb Tories have all condemned Boris's behaviour, even if only when carried out by President Trump.RochdalePioneers said:Some interesting triumphant guff on here last night. Of course the second reading would pass - the interesting big is the committee stage and then how the government proposes to get it past the House of Lords. Minimal chance of this becoming law in time for them to make use of it.
Nor do they need to pass a law allowing them to break the law in a limited and very specific way. Just do whatever they want how they want and have Philip/HYUFD/BluestBlue et al say yebbut they have a majority or whatever. Nor does the measure in question have to have anything to do with what they say it is - Shagger drooled on about GB to NI whilst promoting a bill that explicitly didn't cover that.
So a nice convention they are trying to set. Police arrested you and kept you locked up without charge for 3 weeks? Its cos the EU are trying to remove the common arrest warrant. A minister accidentally sits next to a developer at a £3k a plate party dinner and accidentally saves the developer millions? Its because the EU are trying to stop us fishing or something. And so on.
Its definitely not a concern that Her Majesty's Government no longer understands the laws it passes only months before, sees no need to obey the law, and is happy to say black is white. Absolutely no reason for anyone - especially alleged conservatives - to consider the impact that a lying lawless government of the present or the future could have upon their lives citing this precedent. No concern at all...0 -
The biased
BBC keeps bring people on to show what rot Patel was talking, why can’t they have people saying how wonderful it’s is at present, scrap the license fee sack Liniker.0 -
@DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.0
-
Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.1
-
I hope you’re joking but I recall outrage (which was correct) when people suggested Johnson had made up having COVID-19.Philip_Thompson said:
Starmer's dentist appointment isolation was very conveniently timed.DavidL said:
I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.SouthamObserver said:It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.
0 -
I think much of the issue people have with human rights is their being interpreted to mean something completely different to what was meant when the Charter was signed.Gallowgate said:@DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.
Do you respect Lord Diplock as a jurist? What do you think of this?
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.0 -
I am indeed joking. I should hope the difference is not just that they were not joking but that Starmer isn't sick or showing any symptoms himself and I hope it stays that way. I wouldn't wish illness on anyone or mock anyone who is ill.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I hope you’re joking but I recall outrage (which was correct) when people suggested Johnson had made up having COVID-19.Philip_Thompson said:
Starmer's dentist appointment isolation was very conveniently timed.DavidL said:
I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.SouthamObserver said:It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.
1 -
I don't think young people are overwhelmingly losing their jobs. Rather, of those losing their jobs, they are overwhelmingly young. Surprising it was only 18-24 that was down, 24-65 were all up in July.CorrectHorseBattery said:Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.
0 -
(As they almost said on Star Trek) Its law Joff, but not as we know it.SouthamObserver said:
You mean the law, don't you?DavidL said:
Well paid, more than slightly arrogant, extremely white, old men (in very large part), apparently. They just know better.SouthamObserver said:
If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?DavidL said:
Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.Philip_Thompson said:On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-
In all seriousness I agree with the Sumption critique. Judges who think that they know better are ultimately a threat to democracy.3 -
The resilience of the economy and the jobs market is surprisingly good.RobD said:
I don't think young people are overwhelmingly losing their jobs. Rather, of those losing their jobs, they are overwhelmingly young. Surprising it was only 18-24 that was down, 24-65 were all up in July.CorrectHorseBattery said:Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.
0 -
On topic, if this is basically a rerun of 2018, state polling is kind of flakey, and people are increasingly voting partisan leanings in local races over individual candidates, maybe it's worth looking for states where the 2018 result is out of line with the current polling, and betting that the cumulative 2018 House results will be closer.
This would suggest that, for example, Florida doesn't flip without a landslide:
GOP: 52.35%, Dem: 47.10%
...but Biden's gonna win Iowa:
Dem: 50.52%, GOP: 46.54%1 -
I will be interested to see the results come October.NerysHughes said:
The resilience of the economy and the jobs market is surprisingly good.RobD said:
I don't think young people are overwhelmingly losing their jobs. Rather, of those losing their jobs, they are overwhelmingly young. Surprising it was only 18-24 that was down, 24-65 were all up in July.CorrectHorseBattery said:Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.
0 -
So why did Brandon Lewis present it in such an inflammatory way?Philip_Thompson said:On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-0
