Skip to content

Defection watch – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,776
edited 7:10AM in General
Defection watch – politicalbetting.com

?Braverman praise for Farage fuels defection rumoursFormer home secretary admires Reform leader’s ‘sheer determination, resilience and consistency’https://t.co/84HzL9dHPm

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,966
    She salutes their strength, their courage and their indefatigability.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,213
    Second!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,675
    Remembrance Sunday.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,282
    I note that the things she praises have no relevance or relationship to his policies.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,675
    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,966
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,273
    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,912
    Didn't her husband join Reform and then left because they were nasty about her?

    I'd go for someone with no morals (low bar) such as Nick Timothy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,966
    Battlebus said:

    Didn't her husband join Reform and then left because they were nasty about her?

    I'd go for someone with no morals (low bar) such as Nick Timothy.

    I'm not quite sure how your - um - personal proclivities are relevant here?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,675
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.

    Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,110
    FPT:


    F1: I did choose my bets before seeing what anyone else had written here.

    Anyway, two tips: backed Antonelli each way at 8.5 (set up at a hedge at evens for two and a half times stake).

    I've also split a single stake four ways for: Ant beat Pia 2.65, Hulk/Gas score at 2.45/2.55, and Bearman top 6 at 3.4.

    Bearman was 29 for a podium, and if you've got a free bet that's worth considering.

    https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/11/brazilian-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,110
    Btw, recently finished Peter Frankopan's The First Crusade: The Call from the East, which I can heartily recommend. Raced through its 200-odd pages.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,675
    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,675
    Stop promoting natural birth ideology, midwife courses told
    Despite a litany of scandals, universities are still pushing ‘normal birth’ over medical interventions. Now our investigation has prompted the regulator to act
    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/midwife-maternity-university-education-natural-births-investigation-2dbg80l0c (£££)

    Not that maternity units are without their own scandals.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,166
    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,528
    Battlebus said:

    Didn't her husband join Reform and then left because they were nasty about her?

    I'd go for someone with no morals (low bar) such as Nick Timothy.

    Looks like it. Though most people end up quitting whatever Nigel is calling his party today, presumably because he is so awful to work under.

    Yes, personal charisma helps you get elected. And once in office, it helps quell dissent for a while. But it says virtually nothing about the effectiveness of the direction that a charismatic leader leads their followers in.

    And if the key thing about democracy is timely abandonment of a wrong path, having a charismatic leader is a really bad plan, because they are much harder to remove before catastrophic failure.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,847
    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,166
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    A charismatic person is good at getting elected, but is there any evidence to show that they’re actually better at achieving things when in office?

    I guess we have four years to see how many city-owned grocery stores open, how many free daycares open, and by how much the police are defunded by Mamdani.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,528
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.

    Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
    The irony being that Cameron-in-practice was a lot more right wing and Eurosceptic than his image. Consider the way that his austerity was tilted almost entirely towards spending cuts. (There were tax rises, but they were largely balanced by the threshold increase. The overall tax percentage of GDP barely moved.) Or that his Euro vision was further out than any recent PM, and he was chilled at contemplating completely out.

    A good PR man can do that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,887
    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    Sure Mamdani focussed on bread and butter issues but far from avoiding "identitarian issues" he was open in his support of Trans-rights, as listed here. His youtube ad in the link was from October.

    https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-lgbtq-rights-record

    And I am not convinced by the last paragraph. Corbyn and Polanski certainly have charisma, and Sultana has a massive social media following for a back-bencher.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,528
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    A charismatic person is good at getting elected, but is there any evidence to show that they’re actually better at achieving things when in office?

    I guess we have four years to see how many city-owned grocery stores open, how many free daycares open, and by how much the police are defunded by Mamdani.
    Tentative guess: better at getting things done, worse at ensuring that the things done are the right things, much worse at being removed once they go off the rails.

    Key case study: Alex de Pfeffel.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,327
    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    A very interesting piece on why Mamdani would have been forbidden from being a Labour candidate. The whole thing is worfth watching but there is a piece near the beginning which is reason enough to never considrer voting Labour while Starmer is around

    "Titled why Starmer would have blocked Mamdani"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKSxweRKbkc

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,887
    In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.

    There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,409
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,966
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
    I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
  • TresTres Posts: 3,189
    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    I remember during one of the recent Tory leadership election beauty parades Braverman's wedding photos were shared. They reminded me of a deleted plotline from Get Out.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,872
    edited 8:29AM
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    Sure Mamdani focussed on bread and butter issues but far from avoiding "identitarian issues" he was open in his support of Trans-rights, as listed here. His youtube ad in the link was from October.

    https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-lgbtq-rights-record

    And I am not convinced by the last paragraph. Corbyn and Polanski certainly have charisma, and Sultana has a massive social media following for a back-bencher.
    Morning, PB.

    Yes, this part I thought had definite overtones of Andy Rawnsley looking for reasons to dismiss Polanski. Charisma is in fact a big part of his success, no doubt about it. He can, crucially, also hold a whole narrative.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,528
    WhisperingOracle said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    Sure Mamdani focussed on bread and butter issues but far from avoiding "identitarian issues" he was open in his support of Trans-rights, as listed here. His youtube ad in the link was from October.

    https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-lgbtq-rights-record

    And I am not convinced by the last paragraph. Corbyn and Polanski certainly have charisma, and Sultana has a massive social media following for a back-bencher.
    Morning, PB.

    Yes, this part I thought had definite overtones of Andy Rawnsley looking for reasons to dismiss Polanski. Charisma is in fact a big part of his success, no question.
    But Polanski's CV shows the danger of having a charismatic leader. He has shown an ability to persuade people of things that just aren't so.

    Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,110
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
    I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
    Not my kind of market but you would've got wonderful odds on Verstappen going out in Q1.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,872
    edited 8:36AM
    Stuartinromford said:

    WhisperingOracle said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    Sure Mamdani focussed on bread and butter issues but far from avoiding "identitarian issues" he was open in his support of Trans-rights, as listed here. His youtube ad in the link was from October.

    https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-lgbtq-rights-record

    And I am not convinced by the last paragraph. Corbyn and Polanski certainly have charisma, and Sultana has a massive social media following for a back-bencher.
    Morning, PB.

    Yes, this part I thought had definite overtones of Andy Rawnsley looking for reasons to dismiss Polanski. Charisma is in fact a big part of his success, no question.
    But Polanski's CV shows the danger of having a charismatic leader. He has shown an ability to persuade people of things that just aren't so.

    Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest.
    To an extent, I would agree there, but not entirely. He also has a certain coherent narrative ability that Corbyn lacked.

    The unrealistic part could also be for the beginning of his career, as he establishes himself. I have some sense of him being too canny to stay permanently unrealistic. He's very successfully establishing himself,now.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,781
    edited 8:38AM
    The news is reporting breathlessly that the King is concerned that Andrew Commoner will be alone at Christmas. Perhaps the jowly one can begin his road to redemption by volunteering at a kitchen for the homeless or some such (an orphanage would be a bad idea).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,966
    Morris_Dancer said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
    I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
    Not my kind of market but you would've got wonderful odds on Verstappen going out in Q1.
    First time he's ever been at the back on raw pace, rather than because of mechanical failure, a crash or a penalty.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,533
    Theuniondivvie said:

    The news is reporting breathlessly that the King is concerned that Andrew Commoner will be alone at Christmas. Perhaps the jowly one can begin his road to redemption by volunteering at a kitchen for the homeless or some such (an orphanage would be a bad idea).

    Do they still have reform schools for naughty girls?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,966
    Mexicanpete said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    The news is reporting breathlessly that the King is concerned that Andrew Commoner will be alone at Christmas. Perhaps the jowly one can begin his road to redemption by volunteering at a kitchen for the homeless or some such (an orphanage would be a bad idea).

    Do they still have reform schools for naughty girls?
    Don't even go there (as Charles rather hurriedly said to Andrew).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,371
    Stuartinromford said:

    WhisperingOracle said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    Sure Mamdani focussed on bread and butter issues but far from avoiding "identitarian issues" he was open in his support of Trans-rights, as listed here. His youtube ad in the link was from October.

    https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-lgbtq-rights-record

    And I am not convinced by the last paragraph. Corbyn and Polanski certainly have charisma, and Sultana has a massive social media following for a back-bencher.
    Morning, PB.

    Yes, this part I thought had definite overtones of Andy Rawnsley looking for reasons to dismiss Polanski. Charisma is in fact a big part of his success, no question.
    But Polanski's CV shows the danger of having a charismatic leader. He has shown an ability to persuade people of things that just aren't so.

    Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest.
    Don't knock the placebo effect ,,,
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 1,821
    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    For this leftist, I'm not in the slightest 'sniffy' about performative, charismatic leadership. I am 'sniffy' about the gap between that and delivery (and I suspect this sniffiness is not the preserve of leftists).

    It'll be interesting to watch whether Mamdani delivers.

    Where I think Rawnsley is bang on is that Mamdani didn't display the worst habits of the left, namely highfalutin concerns about abstractions such as identity politics that don't chime with the majority of the electorate. Instead he knew, and listened to, his voters. How many of the left do that?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,213
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    Sure Mamdani focussed on bread and butter issues but far from avoiding "identitarian issues" he was open in his support of Trans-rights, as listed here. His youtube ad in the link was from October.

    https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-lgbtq-rights-record

    And I am not convinced by the last paragraph. Corbyn and Polanski certainly have charisma, and Sultana has a massive social media following for a back-bencher.
    From the full article, the central point is that it would be wrong to see the NYC win as the start of a big swing to the left, even among younger voters, as some are already suggesting, and that the lesson for Labour is to focus relentlessly on the bread and butter economic issues. Rawnsley doesn't actually argue that Zack or Sultana dont have charisma - indeed I recall a nod to Zack's ability in the body of the text.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,166
    ydoethur said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
    I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
    Not my kind of market but you would've got wonderful odds on Verstappen going out in Q1.
    First time he's ever been at the back on raw pace, rather than because of mechanical failure, a crash or a penalty.
    Which is quite the statistic.

    The paddock rumours are that he’ll take a pit lane start, with a new engine and setup.

    There’s probably some poor reserve driver who’s spent the whole night in the factory simulator as the engineers try and find a not-rubbish way to set up the car.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,213
    edited 8:58AM
    Stuartinromford said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    A charismatic person is good at getting elected, but is there any evidence to show that they’re actually better at achieving things when in office?

    I guess we have four years to see how many city-owned grocery stores open, how many free daycares open, and by how much the police are defunded by Mamdani.
    Tentative guess: better at getting things done, worse at ensuring that the things done are the right things, much worse at being removed once they go off the rails.

    Key case study: Alex de Pfeffel.
    He was hopeless at getting things done - once the press launch was over he essentially lost interest. Cf levelling up the north
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,675
    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Don't upset the mods. The Right Honourable Suella Braverman KC MP is a Cambridge-educated lawyer with nice shoes.
    https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/the-houndstooth-patten-shoes-of-home-secretary-suella-news-photo/1252223798
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,110
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
    I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
    Not my kind of market but you would've got wonderful odds on Verstappen going out in Q1.
    First time he's ever been at the back on raw pace, rather than because of mechanical failure, a crash or a penalty.
    Which is quite the statistic.

    The paddock rumours are that he’ll take a pit lane start, with a new engine and setup.

    There’s probably some poor reserve driver who’s spent the whole night in the factory simulator as the engineers try and find a not-rubbish way to set up the car.
    The alarming thing is that it wasn't great before either. They may just switch back to the sprint setup. Verstappen wasn't competing for the win but he was able to get well into the points. If they stick as is, it could just sink his title hopes entirely. If they go for something entirely new that may have the same effect. At least the sprint approach means the pace is there, albeit behind McLaren and Mercedes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,213
    Foxy said:

    In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.

    There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.

    One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.

    The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,528
    maxh said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    For this leftist, I'm not in the slightest 'sniffy' about performative, charismatic leadership. I am 'sniffy' about the gap between that and delivery (and I suspect this sniffiness is not the preserve of leftists).

    It'll be interesting to watch whether Mamdani delivers.

    Where I think Rawnsley is bang on is that Mamdani didn't display the worst habits of the left, namely highfalutin concerns about abstractions such as identity politics that don't chime with the majority of the electorate. Instead he knew, and listened to, his voters. How many of the left do that?
    Suspect there is nothing more and less to it than that.

    A lot of the "woke rabbit hole" attacks are shouted from the anti-woke rabbit hole, which is deeper and contains more rabbits. Somehow, Mamdani could let those attacks bounce off him. It's a brilliant skill if you can do it, and a large part of Starmer's problem is that he can't.

    But also, there may be less to Mamdani's victory than meets the eye. After all, he was up against a discredited sleazeball and a candidate from a party that really isn't popular right now. A win's a win, but there are tougher wins out there.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,213
    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Logic fail; in that latter case, somewhere, sometime, every PB'er has had a go.... ;)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,371
    Stuartinromford said:

    maxh said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    For this leftist, I'm not in the slightest 'sniffy' about performative, charismatic leadership. I am 'sniffy' about the gap between that and delivery (and I suspect this sniffiness is not the preserve of leftists).

    It'll be interesting to watch whether Mamdani delivers.

    Where I think Rawnsley is bang on is that Mamdani didn't display the worst habits of the left, namely highfalutin concerns about abstractions such as identity politics that don't chime with the majority of the electorate. Instead he knew, and listened to, his voters. How many of the left do that?
    Suspect there is nothing more and less to it than that.

    A lot of the "woke rabbit hole" attacks are shouted from the anti-woke rabbit hole, which is deeper and contains more rabbits. Somehow, Mamdani could let those attacks bounce off him. It's a brilliant skill if you can do it, and a large part of Starmer's problem is that he can't.

    But also, there may be less to Mamdani's victory than meets the eye. After all, he was up against a discredited sleazeball and a candidate from a party that really isn't popular right now. A win's a win, but there are tougher wins out there.
    Deeper holes echo more. And contain more empty space in the first place.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,533
    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,213
    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
    Which is back to ideology over pragmatism, and also very weak leadership - an inability to allow other strong players in the team lest they might shine or challenge your own vision. There are so few genuinely heavy hitting politicians about that no party can afford to push away the talent it does have
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,409
    IanB2 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Logic fail; in that latter case, somewhere, sometime, every PB'er has had a go.... ;)
    Wot - even Roger???
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,638
    Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.

    In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?

    Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?

    It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.

    But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,677
    edited 9:17AM
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
    I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
    Not my kind of market but you would've got wonderful odds on Verstappen going out in Q1.
    First time he's ever been at the back on raw pace, rather than because of mechanical failure, a crash or a penalty.
    Which is quite the statistic.

    The paddock rumours are that he’ll take a pit lane start, with a new engine and setup.

    There’s probably some poor reserve driver who’s spent the whole night in the factory simulator as the engineers try and find a not-rubbish way to set up the car.
    I've had a cheeky tenner on Verstappen to win today, I remember last year.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,110
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
    I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
    Not my kind of market but you would've got wonderful odds on Verstappen going out in Q1.
    First time he's ever been at the back on raw pace, rather than because of mechanical failure, a crash or a penalty.
    Which is quite the statistic.

    The paddock rumours are that he’ll take a pit lane start, with a new engine and setup.

    There’s probably some poor reserve driver who’s spent the whole night in the factory simulator as the engineers try and find a not-rubbish way to set up the car.
    I've had a cheeky tenner on Verstappen to win today, I remember last year.
    It's not impossible... but last year he'd shown fantastic pace in the sprint, and the weather played to his strength too. If they don't change the car at all, lack of grip's going to be a bugger, especially in the rain, if it comes.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,677
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.

    In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?

    Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?

    It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.

    But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.

    Yes, unless they die, the cabinet invokes 25, or are impeached and convicted themselves.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,887
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.

    There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.

    One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.

    The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
    @isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".

    I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,781
    Carnyx said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    WhisperingOracle said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    Sure Mamdani focussed on bread and butter issues but far from avoiding "identitarian issues" he was open in his support of Trans-rights, as listed here. His youtube ad in the link was from October.

    https://www.advocate.com/politics/zohran-mamdani-lgbtq-rights-record

    And I am not convinced by the last paragraph. Corbyn and Polanski certainly have charisma, and Sultana has a massive social media following for a back-bencher.
    Morning, PB.

    Yes, this part I thought had definite overtones of Andy Rawnsley looking for reasons to dismiss Polanski. Charisma is in fact a big part of his success, no question.
    But Polanski's CV shows the danger of having a charismatic leader. He has shown an ability to persuade people of things that just aren't so.

    Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest.
    Don't knock the placebo effect ,,,
    I’m afraid it’s always had its knockers.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,533
    MarqueeMark said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
    If you approved of them, they weren't Tories!
    That is probably very true.

    Social democrat interlopers like Grieve and Spreadsheet.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,166
    Suggestions that Norwegian national wealth fund is preparing to underwrite €100bn European military loan to Ukraine off the back of frozen Russian assets.

    https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/1987443039778828604

    That buys quite a few drones and missiles.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,638
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.

    In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?

    Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?

    It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.

    But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.

    Yes, unless they die, the cabinet invokes 25, or are impeached and convicted themselves.
    So a one in about 5 million chance of the Democrats getting the Presidency in 2027 !
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,677
    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.



    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,677
    edited 9:30AM
    MattW said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.

    In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?

    Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?

    It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.

    But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.

    Yes, unless they die, the cabinet invokes 25, or are impeached and convicted themselves.
    So a one in about 5 million chance of the Democrats getting the Presidency in 2027 !
    It nearly happened in 1973 when Carl Albert, the American Rishi Sunak, could have succeeded Richard Nixon if the most damaging Watergate revelations had come out sooner.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,887
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.



    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny

    We could do with an "unlike" button.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,872
    edited 9:39AM
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.



    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny

    Fantastic.

    I'll take three.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,677
    Morris_Dancer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    16th, like Max Verstappen in qualifying.

    They did a quite remarkable job in making that car so undriveable - meanwhile both Racing Bulls are in the top 10
    I'm relieved to see TSE is still alive, although I'm a bit concerned he's only able to do simple stuff like post thread headers. Is he still shaking so much with laughter?
    Not my kind of market but you would've got wonderful odds on Verstappen going out in Q1.
    First time he's ever been at the back on raw pace, rather than because of mechanical failure, a crash or a penalty.
    Which is quite the statistic.

    The paddock rumours are that he’ll take a pit lane start, with a new engine and setup.

    There’s probably some poor reserve driver who’s spent the whole night in the factory simulator as the engineers try and find a not-rubbish way to set up the car.
    I've had a cheeky tenner on Verstappen to win today, I remember last year.
    It's not impossible... but last year he'd shown fantastic pace in the sprint, and the weather played to his strength too. If they don't change the car at all, lack of grip's going to be a bugger, especially in the rain, if it comes.
    My strategy is a few safety cars will upend things.

    Piastri's driving like Luca Badoer/Nikita Mazepin and might try and attempt a Hail Mary move which only makes things worse.

    Say Hadjar gets a good start and leads the race after lap 1 and becomes a mobile chicane bunching the field up...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,371
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.



    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny

    Don't see the joke in the August page?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,213
    edited 9:37AM
    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
    If you approved of them, they weren't Tories!
    That is probably very true.

    Social democrat interlopers like Grieve and Spreadsheet.
    In the old days, provided you were willing to choose between Labour and Tory, accept the consequential compromises, and had a reasonable degree of ability, you would get a national political career, and then you just had to hope that your party's turn in power coincided with the peak of your career.

    For those like me who were always unwilling to make that choice, it's amusing to see individual Tories now sizing up which way to jump, to salvage their careers
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,677
    Foxy said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.



    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny

    We could do with an "unlike" button.
    You should see the pictures for the months, you'll be a fan.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,140
    Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,409
    Sandpit said:

    Suggestions that Norwegian national wealth fund is preparing to underwrite €100bn European military loan to Ukraine off the back of frozen Russian assets.

    https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/1987443039778828604

    That buys quite a few drones and missiles.

    And Gripen E's.

    E's are good....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,166
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.

    img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/hr/p2jbpfftqsdr.png" alt="" />

    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny

    Not sure that’s going to bother Sydney Sweeney in the ‘26 calendar sales chart.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    I suspect if Suella Braverman defected to Reform and Liz Truss then followed her, Kemi would not be too displeased
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,140
    edited 9:44AM
    IanB2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
    If you approved of them, they weren't Tories!
    That is probably very true.

    Social democrat interlopers like Grieve and Spreadsheet.
    In the old days, provided you were willing to choose between Labour and Tory, accept the consequential compromises, and had a reasonable degree of ability, you would get a national political career, and then you just had to hope that your party's turn in power coincided with the peak of your career.

    For those like me who were always unwilling to make that choice, it's amusing to see individual Tories now sizing up which way to jump, to salvage their careers
    Mark's comments about Suella Braverman and her abilities should be read within the context that he supported Rishi Sunak for leader - an inconsequential, dithering, charisma-free windsock for whom the phrase 'no mark' was invented. Sunak not Mark.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.

    There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.

    One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.

    The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
    @isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".

    I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
    Jenrick would but Kemi maybe would not and Cleverly certainly wouldn't
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,409
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
    If you approved of them, they weren't Tories!
    That is probably very true.

    Social democrat interlopers like Grieve and Spreadsheet.
    In the old days, provided you were willing to choose between Labour and Tory, accept the consequential compromises, and had a reasonable degree of ability, you would get a national political career, and then you just had to hope that your party's turn in power coincided with the peak of your career.

    For those like me who were always unwilling to make that choice, it's amusing to see individual Tories now sizing up which way to jump, to salvage their careers
    Mark's comments about Suella Braverman and her abilities should be read within the context that he supported Rishi Sunak for leader - an inconsequential, dithering, charisma-free windsock for whom the phrase 'no mark' was invented. Sunak not Mark.
    Hey, if the cap fits...

    I supported Rishi only when the alternative was Liz Truss.

    The defence rests.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    edited 9:48AM
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.

    In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?

    Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?

    It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.

    But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.

    You wouldn't get Republican Senators impeaching Trump and Vance, a handful might vote to impeach Trump if the Epstein files contained something devastating about POTUS but they wouldn't impeach the Veep as well. They certainly wouldn't vote to enable a Democrat Speaker to become POTUS over Vance
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,835
    MarqueeMark said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
    If you approved of them, they weren't Tories!
    That is probably very true.

    Social democrat interlopers like Grieve and Spreadsheet.
    In the old days, provided you were willing to choose between Labour and Tory, accept the consequential compromises, and had a reasonable degree of ability, you would get a national political career, and then you just had to hope that your party's turn in power coincided with the peak of your career.

    For those like me who were always unwilling to make that choice, it's amusing to see individual Tories now sizing up which way to jump, to salvage their careers
    Mark's comments about Suella Braverman and her abilities should be read within the context that he supported Rishi Sunak for leader - an inconsequential, dithering, charisma-free windsock for whom the phrase 'no mark' was invented. Sunak not Mark.
    Hey, if the cap fits...

    I supported Rishi only when the alternative was Liz Truss.

    The defence rests.
    What I admire most about Luckyguy is his consistency.

    He is, of course, consistently wrong but he does have the strength of his convictions.

    (Also, I do genuinely believe he is well-intentioned - but then "the path to hell..." etc.)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,140
    ...
    MarqueeMark said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
    If you approved of them, they weren't Tories!
    That is probably very true.

    Social democrat interlopers like Grieve and Spreadsheet.
    In the old days, provided you were willing to choose between Labour and Tory, accept the consequential compromises, and had a reasonable degree of ability, you would get a national political career, and then you just had to hope that your party's turn in power coincided with the peak of your career.

    For those like me who were always unwilling to make that choice, it's amusing to see individual Tories now sizing up which way to jump, to salvage their careers
    Mark's comments about Suella Braverman and her abilities should be read within the context that he supported Rishi Sunak for leader - an inconsequential, dithering, charisma-free windsock for whom the phrase 'no mark' was invented. Sunak not Mark.
    Hey, if the cap fits...

    I supported Rishi only when the alternative was Liz Truss.

    The defence rests.
    Fair enough. I think oddly we both might have supported Penny before finding opposite sides in the final battle.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,528
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    In terms of defection watch, it is very much an insiders market. Also more likely to be some obscure back-bencher than someone like Braverman.

    There may also be other defections, for example Labour to Green, or Your Party to Green, Your Party seeming to be as rancourous as Reform.

    One could posit a correlation between more ideological politics and more infighting, on the basis that practical, moderate pragmatic politicians are more used to compromises with others and with the world as it actually is.

    The demise of the Tory Party essentially derives from the triumph of ideology over pragmatism, the irony being that its replacement on the right looks more ideological still - and may of course finish up going the same way.
    @isam posted recently about his bad bet on Starmer winning seats last year, because Starmer is so lacking in either charisma or coherence. An example perhaps of the betting corollory to the stock market aphorism "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".

    I think we all know that Farage will be a disaster as PM but that doesnt mean that he won't get the gig. Sensible Tories would never support him in the event of a Reform minority government. It would be the end of them.
    (If you are triggered by what appears to be my catchphrase, look away now)

    What the "Starmer is awful, he'll never be PM" bet missed was that someone had to win in 2024, and everyone else was clearly even worse. That was as true on the Labour benches as in the other parties.

    Starmer has no fans, which is why none of his fans have tried to explain his poor polling. Heck, I don't think he expected, or particularly wanted, to be PM in 2020. It was only the multiple pileup of clown cars by the Conservatives that gave him the opportunity. And that opportunity was always a chalice with unusual skull-and-crossbones markings.

    Right now, his job is to absorb as much of the toxicity heading the British government's way, and see which of the next generation of ministers is any good. They can take over in 2028, and then the game is afoot again.

    Until then, we all have to wait. Unfortunate for us, and for him, but there we are.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    edited 9:58AM
    Roger said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    A very interesting piece on why Mamdani would have been forbidden from being a Labour candidate. The whole thing is worfth watching but there is a piece near the beginning which is reason enough to never considrer voting Labour while Starmer is around

    "Titled why Starmer would have blocked Mamdani"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKSxweRKbkc

    To be fair Labour won the London Mayoralty even under Corbyn, Khan won it in 2016 and Corbyn won most seats even in 2019 in London.

    It was the suburbs and ex industrial towns Starmer needed to win back when he won the GE last year after Corbyn led Labour to 2 defeats in the prior 2 GEs and a candidate like Mamdani would not have helped him do so.

    I know centrist Dems are worried that while Mamdani has won NYC his socialism will turn off swing voters in swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Nevada and Georgia, especially outside of the inner cities there. Note the more centrist Dems in the Virginia and NJ governor races got a higher voteshare last week than Harris did last year, Mamdani got a lower voteshare in New York City though than even Harris had in 2024.

    Indeed even leftist anti war George McGovern got 51.46% in New York city in 1972 when Nixon beat him US wide by a landslide. Last week Mamdani's voteshare was even less than that, 50.4%
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_York_City
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_New_York_City_mayoral_election
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,409
    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.

    In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?

    Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?

    It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.

    But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.

    You wouldn't get Republican Senators impeaching Trump and Vance, a handful might impeach Trump if the Epstein files contained something devastating about POTUS but they wouldn't impeach the Veep as well
    The buzz in Washington is that there is Epstein material that would indeed lead to impeachment. It's that bad. Bondi isn't sure that all copies have been shredded - hence her distraction performance in front of the Senate oversight committee when asked.

    Although I suspect they would rather go with the less embarrassing 25th. If it exists and it gets leaked, the "AI fake" will be trotted out - although it will likely fail as it will be datestamped before AI fakery was a thing. "Ah, but the datestamp is an AI fake..." But he will be a busted flush, the Congress members will recoil from supporting him - and he will be gone.

    It could get leaked any day now.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,140
    Benpointer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Suella might still harbour thoughts of leading the Conservative Party back into power.

    She’s a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one). They’re not allowed to do drugs.
    Cynics would say that Suella is following Boris's wait and see approach, his cakeism, his two articles, until it is clear whether her best chance is to replace Nige or Kemi.
    Truss can be blamed for many things, but perhaps the worst is giving succour to the absolute no-marks who think they have a chance of becoming party leaders.

    There are an infinite number of universes. In none of them will Suella Braverman ever lead a political party.
    Although Alexander Johnson set the precedent. He kicked out all the talent (well Tories I approved of) and promoted only chaff.
    If you approved of them, they weren't Tories!
    That is probably very true.

    Social democrat interlopers like Grieve and Spreadsheet.
    In the old days, provided you were willing to choose between Labour and Tory, accept the consequential compromises, and had a reasonable degree of ability, you would get a national political career, and then you just had to hope that your party's turn in power coincided with the peak of your career.

    For those like me who were always unwilling to make that choice, it's amusing to see individual Tories now sizing up which way to jump, to salvage their careers
    Mark's comments about Suella Braverman and her abilities should be read within the context that he supported Rishi Sunak for leader - an inconsequential, dithering, charisma-free windsock for whom the phrase 'no mark' was invented. Sunak not Mark.
    Hey, if the cap fits...

    I supported Rishi only when the alternative was Liz Truss.

    The defence rests.
    What I admire most about Luckyguy is his consistency.

    He is, of course, consistently wrong but he does have the strength of his convictions.

    (Also, I do genuinely believe he is well-intentioned - but then "the path to hell..." etc.)
    Thank you - I'll take the compliment.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,677
    Carnyx said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.



    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny

    Don't see the joke in the August page?
    They are all awesome jokes.

    I like November a lot.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,371
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Carnyx said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.



    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny

    Don't see the joke in the August page?
    They are all awesome jokes.

    I like November a lot.
    Still don't understand August ...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,909
    IanB2 said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    A charismatic person is good at getting elected, but is there any evidence to show that they’re actually better at achieving things when in office?

    I guess we have four years to see how many city-owned grocery stores open, how many free daycares open, and by how much the police are defunded by Mamdani.
    Tentative guess: better at getting things done, worse at ensuring that the things done are the right things, much worse at being removed once they go off the rails.

    Key case study: Alex de Pfeffel.
    He was hopeless at getting things done - once the press launch was over he essentially lost interest. Cf levelling up the north
    The only things that got done under Johnson's leadership were due to effective people he appointed to do those things. Which is always going to be the case for a leader at the very top of an organisation.

    This is where charisma is a benefit. People want to work for you. They want to please you. They are inspired by you.

    Obviously the charismatic leader has to appoint the right people to do the right things and back them against opposition, and also a public perception of charisma may not always match the private reality, but I think charisma is definitely a quality that a successful political leader would have.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,677
    Carnyx said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Carnyx said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This is the perfect Christmas present for the loved ones in your life, or you can buy it for yourself.



    https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1084491687/jacob-rees-mogg-2026-wall-calendar-funny

    Don't see the joke in the August page?
    They are all awesome jokes.

    I like November a lot.
    Still don't understand August ...
    I think it is to be seen in the same vein as as October.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    RochdalePioneers said:

    HYUFD said:

    I suspect if Suella Braverman defected to Reform and Liz Truss then followed her, Kemi would not be too displeased

    Reform have got a real problem here.

    One one hand they see themselves as the successor to the Conservative Party. So why not bring over the old guard.

    On the other hand they are trying to do something the Tories couldn't do even at the height of their Boris pomp. Being stuffed full of Tories doesn't help.

    So here is the basic question - does welcoming Braverman or Truss or Mogg help them or hinder them? I think the latter. And frankly Dorries was a mistake as well.
    Indeed, Braverman of course backed Truss in 2022 when her leadership bid failed and she and Truss are toxic to swing voters, so Farage would be taking a risk if they went. Dorries doesn't add much to him either.

    Mogg won't go though, he is a Tory to his bootstraps and also a class act compared to the other 3
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    edited 10:05AM
    Stuartinromford said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.

    Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
    The irony being that Cameron-in-practice was a lot more right wing and Eurosceptic than his image. Consider the way that his austerity was tilted almost entirely towards spending cuts. (There were tax rises, but they were largely balanced by the threshold increase. The overall tax percentage of GDP barely moved.) Or that his Euro vision was further out than any recent PM, and he was chilled at contemplating completely out.

    A good PR man can do that.
    Osborne was even more Thatcherite than Cameron, he wanted to take spending as a percentage of gdp down to just 35% had he remained Chancellor after the 2015 GE election for a full 5 years. He did though sensibly warn Cameron of the risks of an EUref.

    Boris and even May and Hammond ironically were more big government and high spend than Cameron and Osborne
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,638
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Stop promoting natural birth ideology, midwife courses told
    Despite a litany of scandals, universities are still pushing ‘normal birth’ over medical interventions. Now our investigation has prompted the regulator to act
    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/midwife-maternity-university-education-natural-births-investigation-2dbg80l0c (£££)

    Not that maternity units are without their own scandals.

    Looking at the piece it's rather disjointed and superficial for an "investigation" imo.

    To me it has a feel of identifying its conclusion first, and is quite light on data.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    LostPassword said:

    IanB2 said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    A charismatic person is good at getting elected, but is there any evidence to show that they’re actually better at achieving things when in office?

    I guess we have four years to see how many city-owned grocery stores open, how many free daycares open, and by how much the police are defunded by Mamdani.
    Tentative guess: better at getting things done, worse at ensuring that the things done are the right things, much worse at being removed once they go off the rails.

    Key case study: Alex de Pfeffel.
    He was hopeless at getting things done - once the press launch was over he essentially lost interest. Cf levelling up the north
    The only things that got done under Johnson's leadership were due to effective people he appointed to do those things. Which is always going to be the case for a leader at the very top of an organisation.

    This is where charisma is a benefit. People want to work for you. They want to please you. They are inspired by you.

    Obviously the charismatic leader has to appoint the right people to do the right things and back them against opposition, and also a public perception of charisma may not always match the private reality, but I think charisma is definitely a quality that a successful political leader would have.
    Indeed, most of our GE winners normally are charismatic. Starmer was probably the first non charismatic party leader to win a GE majority since John Major in 1992 (though Major could be charming in a way Starmer can't and also got on his soapbox to get a rather higher voteshare in 1992 than Starmer did in 2024 even if with fewer seats)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,638
    edited 10:19AM
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.

    Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
    I'm slightly struggling with Dubya Bush as a charisma focus - but my perception maybe skewed by UK reporting. I'm aware that he was good in his daily habits, and working sensible hours and so ... but charisma ?

    To me, the Dubya stereotype is quite like Marlon in the Truman Show - the friend who keeps appearing with a crate of beer.

    https://youtu.be/6U4-KZSoe6g?t=77
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,279
    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.

    In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?

    Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?

    It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.

    But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.

    You wouldn't get Republican Senators impeaching Trump and Vance, a handful might impeach Trump if the Epstein files contained something devastating about POTUS but they wouldn't impeach the Veep as well
    The buzz in Washington is that there is Epstein material that would indeed lead to impeachment. It's that bad. Bondi isn't sure that all copies have been shredded - hence her distraction performance in front of the Senate oversight committee when asked.

    Although I suspect they would rather go with the less embarrassing 25th. If it exists and it gets leaked, the "AI fake" will be trotted out - although it will likely fail as it will be datestamped before AI fakery was a thing. "Ah, but the datestamp is an AI fake..." But he will be a busted flush, the Congress members will recoil from supporting him - and he will be gone.

    It could get leaked any day now.
    The material was mostly electronic, I believe. Boxes of DVDs recorded from CCTV etc Plus the FBI and the locals would have scanned anything they found as paper.

    Once stuff is electronic, copies practically make themselves.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    MattW said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    I'm sure it's a total coincidence, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known for their charisma.
    The difference I think is that Reagan, GW Bush and Trump were explicitly chosen for their charisma, in order to get the GOP elected in order to enact policies favouring the cynical hard men, the dark forces controlling the party.

    Our closest analogy might be Tony Blair, at least insofar as the left saw his centrist views as a price worth paying to return to power. Maybe Cameron at a pinch.
    I'm slightly struggling with Dubya Bush as a charisma focus - but my perception maybe skewed by UK reporting. I'm aware that he was good in his daily habits, and working sensible hours and so ... but charisma ?

    To me, the Dubya stereotype is quite like Marlon in the Truman Show - the friend who keeps appearing with a crate of beer.

    https://youtu.be/6U4-KZSoe6g?t=77
    Dubya was certainly more charismatic than Gore or Kerry
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,859
    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    A very interesting piece on why Mamdani would have been forbidden from being a Labour candidate. The whole thing is worfth watching but there is a piece near the beginning which is reason enough to never considrer voting Labour while Starmer is around

    "Titled why Starmer would have blocked Mamdani"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKSxweRKbkc

    To be fair Labour won the London Mayoralty even under Corbyn, Khan won it in 2016 and Corbyn won most seats even in 2019 in London.

    It was the suburbs and ex industrial towns Starmer needed to win back when he won the GE last year after Corbyn led Labour to 2 defeats in the prior 2 GEs and a candidate like Mamdani would not have helped him do so.

    I know centrist Dems are worried that while Mamdani has won NYC his socialism will turn off swing voters in swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Nevada and Georgia, especially outside of the inner cities there. Note the more centrist Dems in the Virginia and NJ governor races got a higher voteshare last week than Harris did last year, Mamdani got a lower voteshare in New York City though than even Harris had in 2024.

    Indeed even leftist anti war George McGovern got 51.46% in New York city in 1972 when Nixon beat him US wide by a landslide. Last week Mamdani's voteshare was even less than that, 50.4%
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_York_City
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_New_York_City_mayoral_election
    Most people don't instinctively think on a left-right axis as most of us do here - they go for more nebulous characteristics. Also, politics isn't only about winning - you need to win FOR something for it to be worthwhile, even if it's more difficult than merely winning with vague slogans that you've not thought through.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,112
    RochdalePioneers said:

    HYUFD said:

    I suspect if Suella Braverman defected to Reform and Liz Truss then followed her, Kemi would not be too displeased

    Reform have got a real problem here.

    One one hand they see themselves as the successor to the Conservative Party. So why not bring over the old guard.

    On the other hand they are trying to do something the Tories couldn't do even at the height of their Boris pomp. Being stuffed full of Tories doesn't help.

    So here is the basic question - does welcoming Braverman or Truss or Mogg help them or hinder them? I think the latter. And frankly Dorries was a mistake as well.
    Good morning

    All parties have problems and nobody has the answer because they know if they tell the truth that we are massively overspending, borrowing and taxing the public won't wear the remedy

    I noticed on Sky this morning their poll has the Lib Dems in 5th place !!!!

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,409
    Malmesbury said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. I was out last night so I'll try and pick up replies re: disfunctional state later on.

    In the meantime, what happens if both the President and Vice-President of the USA are impeached and removed?

    Does the Speaker of the House of Congress keep the post until the next Presidential Election, because their Elections are on a rigid timescale?

    It's VERY far-fetched in reality, but not one I'd considered. The scenario is if in 2026 the Dems win the House, then enough Republican Senators (however many that is) help them impeach Trump and Vance.

    But we have seen stranger things in the USA in the last two years.

    You wouldn't get Republican Senators impeaching Trump and Vance, a handful might impeach Trump if the Epstein files contained something devastating about POTUS but they wouldn't impeach the Veep as well
    The buzz in Washington is that there is Epstein material that would indeed lead to impeachment. It's that bad. Bondi isn't sure that all copies have been shredded - hence her distraction performance in front of the Senate oversight committee when asked.

    Although I suspect they would rather go with the less embarrassing 25th. If it exists and it gets leaked, the "AI fake" will be trotted out - although it will likely fail as it will be datestamped before AI fakery was a thing. "Ah, but the datestamp is an AI fake..." But he will be a busted flush, the Congress members will recoil from supporting him - and he will be gone.

    It could get leaked any day now.
    The material was mostly electronic, I believe. Boxes of DVDs recorded from CCTV etc Plus the FBI and the locals would have scanned anything they found as paper.

    Once stuff is electronic, copies practically make themselves.
    It's a good job that Trump and his administration are keeping the FBI staff onboard.

    Oh.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,371
    edited 10:27AM
    NickPalmer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    IanB2 said:

    Today’s Rawnsley, rushed out while the sky is still blue, on the lessons from the NYC mayoral election:

    The trick is working out which are the correct lessons to take away from what is undoubtedly a stunning achievement by someone who started the campaign as an obscure member of the state assembly and was a household name only among his own family. The wrong place to start is with his ideological complexion. The right place to begin is with his campaign character. He is an eloquent and energising personality who can connect with voters, turn a phrase and perform eye-catching stunts.

    Today the more effective communicators tend to be produced by the populist right. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage know how to connect with audiences. The left can be suspicious about the performative dimensions of politics. Mr Mamdani’s victory underlines why it is a mistake to be sniffy. As successful politicians through the ages have demonstrated, Mr Mamdani had an acute understanding of his electoral market. He spoke to New Yorkers who find their city excruciatingly expensive…[although] A lot of what he has promised is not in his power alone to deliver, so it is moot how much of his economic populism will withstand contact with reality.

    Another lesson for the left on both sides of the pond to note is that his campaign largely set aside the identitarian politics, which has often been a quagmire for the progressive cause in recent years. His pitch relentlessly emphasised bread-and-butter issues.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not – sorry, Zack, and regrets, Zarah – that tomorrow belongs to the Polanski or Sultana versions of the radical left. The message from America is a reminder that charismatic leadership counts. So does knowing your electorate and understanding how to connect with it.

    A very interesting piece on why Mamdani would have been forbidden from being a Labour candidate. The whole thing is worfth watching but there is a piece near the beginning which is reason enough to never considrer voting Labour while Starmer is around

    "Titled why Starmer would have blocked Mamdani"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKSxweRKbkc

    To be fair Labour won the London Mayoralty even under Corbyn, Khan won it in 2016 and Corbyn won most seats even in 2019 in London.

    It was the suburbs and ex industrial towns Starmer needed to win back when he won the GE last year after Corbyn led Labour to 2 defeats in the prior 2 GEs and a candidate like Mamdani would not have helped him do so.

    I know centrist Dems are worried that while Mamdani has won NYC his socialism will turn off swing voters in swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Nevada and Georgia, especially outside of the inner cities there. Note the more centrist Dems in the Virginia and NJ governor races got a higher voteshare last week than Harris did last year, Mamdani got a lower voteshare in New York City though than even Harris had in 2024.

    Indeed even leftist anti war George McGovern got 51.46% in New York city in 1972 when Nixon beat him US wide by a landslide. Last week Mamdani's voteshare was even less than that, 50.4%
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_York_City
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_New_York_City_mayoral_election
    Most people don't instinctively think on a left-right axis as most of us do here - they go for more nebulous characteristics. Also, politics isn't only about winning - you need to win FOR something for it to be worthwhile, even if it's more difficult than merely winning with vague slogans that you've not thought through.
    Not 24/7 no but in the ballot box they do and about who will be best for the economy normally most of all. If little difference then the more charismatic candidate wins but if a big ideological divide that also matters.

    Yes, you are right on your second sentence, it may be like Labour had to go through with Corbyn. The Democrats need to go through with a national candidate like Mamdani or AOC to get socialist ideology out of their system before they put electability first again.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,279
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Suella's greatest crime seems to have been being right.

    She's a nasty woman, her homelessness is a lifestyle choice comments were vile, given the number of people with mental health/ex military people who are homeless, very few people choose to be homeless. I know somebody who was made homeless through no fault of her own, her partner had got himself into debt, and they banks/lender repossessed the property, she was 'lucky' because her family and friends stepped up, not everybody has that support system.

    I told Boris Johnson that one of his proudest achievements as PM was to end rough sleeping at the start of the pandemic, one of his biggest failures was to ensure rough sleeping was a thing of the past.
    A couple of points

    - ex-military rough sleepers. A couple of years ago, a military charity, working with the military did a survey. What they found was - of the genuine ex-military, something like 95%+ among rough sleepers had been let go during *training*. For having suspected mental health issues. That’s interesting because that suggests an opportunity to help earlier.

    - simply stuffing rough sleepers into hotels etc does very little. The issues that lead to people sleeping in cardboard boxes are not easy to solve

    - the bigger problem is homelessness. Which isn’t rough sleeping. But not having a permanent home - see rooms in shitty “B&Bs” paid for by the council.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,537
    Morning all :)

    On a complete tangent - I mean, who wants to talk about Suella Braverman? Her record in Government when put under proper scrutiny will raise plenty of doubts about her capability to be a future Prime Minister.

    Anyway, a propos very little, BAY CITY ROLLER won the final Group 1 of the European flat season in Germany yesterday. It wasn't an easy race to watch - not shown on either of the specialist racing channels or even in the betting shops so I had to watch it on Deutscher Galopp.

    I was musing this morning on the race and on the name of the winner and the cultural connotations. At one place I worked, we all had to bring in embarrassing photos of our younger selves for the Christmas party one year and one of my colleagues brought in a picture of herself (aged 12 or 13) in the full Bay City Roller tartan get up with the tartan scarf, the double denim etc.

    On my morning perambulation round the Derbyshire lanes today, I was musing on how much Scotland mattered in the 1970s - it was a period of cultural and social relevance when the country punched far above its weight. They had a better football team but the point was somehow Scotland was a huge part of the national consciousness then in a way it isn't now. Wales was also more evident but 50 years on you'd hardly know they were there.

    As we have become more global in focus we have also become more insular. Identity is a funny thing - people want to belong, to be part of something yet it's also, I think, possible to have a multi-faceted identity and that identity crosses ethnicity and creed but has to move beyond romanticised and idealised versions of what never was. Within that, identity is evolving, what was British once isn't necessarily how it is defined now and indeed that definition is layered by time and external influences.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025