Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Midas touch. Living in a world of abundant knowledge

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited July 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Midas touch. Living in a world of abundant knowledge

In the middle ages, Timbuktu was fabulously wealthy. It controlled the gold trade and it had all the riches that you would expect from that. Mansa Musa, the sultan, had a fortune that you couldn’t dream away, you couldn’t wish away.  

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,815
    I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc

    Corbyn is every bit as much of a populist as Trump. He just has a rather different type of populism. The left/right axis is more of a circle at times with the far right not being very much different to the far left and vice-versa.

    Corbyn's populist far left appeal is little different to Trump's far right appeal. With the associations with antisemitism etc to boot too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371
    (FPT)

    Nigelb said:

    This is an interesting poll - it appears his recent travails have not much impacted Biden’s appeal versus Trump:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451859-trump-trails-biden-by-10-points-in-new-poll

    Notable that the ‘generic Democrat whom you regard as a socialist’ is losing to Trump.

    A 6-point margin compared with, say, Warren, isn't bad given that socialism has an recent years been seen in the US as thoroughly weird, like flat earthism. That's a view held by some here, of course, but it's unremarkable to say one's a socialist, whereas in the US it has been really unusual for decades.
    I think you might be missing the distinction between self-describing as a socialist, and being ‘regarded as’ one.
    In the US it’s quite a significant one.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,451
    Great article, Alastair.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    Interesting article @AlastairMeeks. Especially the bit about how knowledge being freely available is changing the nature of professions such as medicine and law. Very relevant to what we've discussed previously!
  • ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    edited July 7

    I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc

    Corbyn is every bit as much of a populist as Trump. He just has a rather different type of populism. The left/right axis is more of a circle at times with the far right not being very much different to the far left and vice-versa.

    Corbyn's populist far left appeal is little different to Trump's far right appeal. With the associations with antisemitism etc to boot too.

    Corbyn hardly puts popular into populism. But what made him leader wasn’t populism at all, but a desire to see a radical alternative in government after perceived wasted years of new labour and the coalition. It’s not a cult behind corbyn, but a cult wanting a proper labour government unlike the charlatan new labour one.

    Problem is for such a cult, it can’t guarantee another left leader to replace him in a fresh leadership contest, so Corbyn must stay there like the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne to protect their own self interest.

    So no, its not populism.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    Zephyr said:

    I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc

    Corbyn is every bit as much of a populist as Trump. He just has a rather different type of populism. The left/right axis is more of a circle at times with the far right not being very much different to the far left and vice-versa.

    Corbyn's populist far left appeal is little different to Trump's far right appeal. With the associations with antisemitism etc to boot too.

    Corbyn hardly puts popular into populism. But what made him leader wasn’t populism at all, but a desire to see a radical alternative in government after perceived wasted years of new labour and the coalition. It’s not a cult behind corbyn, but a cult wanting a proper labour government unlike the charlatan new labour one.

    Problem is for such a cult, it can’t guarantee another left leader to replace him in a fresh leadership contest, so Corbyn must stay there like the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne to protect their own self interest.

    So no, its not populism.
    I think that's to misunderstood 'populism.' If we take it as, 'offering policies without considering their impact, for the sole purpose of securing votes,' Corbyn definitely qualifies, as would Le Pen, Die Linke, Syriza, Chavez and Trump.

    Remember, Trump was less popular than Hilary Clinton, but nobody denies he's a populist.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,815
    ydoethur said:

    Zephyr said:

    I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc

    Corbyn is every bit as much of a populist as Trump. He just has a rather different type of populism. The left/right axis is more of a circle at times with the far right not being very much different to the far left and vice-versa.

    Corbyn's populist far left appeal is little different to Trump's far right appeal. With the associations with antisemitism etc to boot too.

    Corbyn hardly puts popular into populism. But what made him leader wasn’t populism at all, but a desire to see a radical alternative in government after perceived wasted years of new labour and the coalition. It’s not a cult behind corbyn, but a cult wanting a proper labour government unlike the charlatan new labour one.

    Problem is for such a cult, it can’t guarantee another left leader to replace him in a fresh leadership contest, so Corbyn must stay there like the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne to protect their own self interest.

    So no, its not populism.
    I think that's to misunderstood 'populism.' If we take it as, 'offering policies without considering their impact, for the sole purpose of securing votes,' Corbyn definitely qualifies, as would Le Pen, Die Linke, Syriza, Chavez and Trump.

    Remember, Trump was less popular than Hilary Clinton, but nobody denies he's a populist.
    Precisely. Plus take Mr Meeks words "populists are strikingly unpopular among the populace as a whole, with loyal followings but a low ceiling on their support" ... describes Corbyn perfectly.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,144
    Intriguing article - a new angle, not something you see every day. Thanks, Alastair.

    A factor not mentioned is that the flood of information has made many people feel it's all too complicated. They were comfortable taking a view on, say, whether taxes should rise 2p to fund a better NHS. But something as multifaceted as Brexit defeats almost everyone. So they give up, and go for the simplest available options - either Revoke (hello, LibDems) or No Deal (hi, Nigel). People, from May to Corbyn, who attempt to introduce nuances and yes-buts are regarded with irritation.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,815

    Intriguing article - a new angle, not something you see every day. Thanks, Alastair.

    A factor not mentioned is that the flood of information has made many people feel it's all too complicated. They were comfortable taking a view on, say, whether taxes should rise 2p to fund a better NHS. But something as multifaceted as Brexit defeats almost everyone. So they give up, and go for the simplest available options - either Revoke (hello, LibDems) or No Deal (hi, Nigel). People, from May to Corbyn, who attempt to introduce nuances and yes-buts are regarded with irritation.

    Corbyn does nuance?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,520
    The corollary to the explosion of information is the collapse of trust. Populists find it easy to cry betrayal by others but not to get people to trust them to sort things out.

    We need to learn how to trust politicians to act competently in our interest. Otherwise we all lose out.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,271
    FF43 said:

    The corollary to the explosion of information is the collapse of trust. Populists find it easy to cry betrayal by others but not to get people to trust them to sort things out.

    We need to learn how to trust politicians to act competently in our interest. Otherwise we all lose out.

    Some are too busy claiming they are acting how we mandated them to act with no thought of our best interest.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,815

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    You forgot to mention Iraq, leaving a deficit of over 10% of GDP per annum and the first bank run in a century.

    What's interesting is that if you take out the ones that are just about spending money, which they eventually ran out of like all socialists do, almost all the actual big ideas pretty much came in Blair's first term. If something had stopped Blair after his first term before Iraq he would be looked on as transformative.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    You forgot to mention Iraq, leaving a deficit of over 10% of GDP per annum and the first bank run in a century.

    What's interesting is that if you take out the ones that are just about spending money, which they eventually ran out of like all socialists do, almost all the actual big ideas pretty much came in Blair's first term. If something had stopped Blair after his first term before Iraq he would be looked on as transformative.
    I didn't say New Labour was perfect.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,815

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    You forgot to mention Iraq, leaving a deficit of over 10% of GDP per annum and the first bank run in a century.

    What's interesting is that if you take out the ones that are just about spending money, which they eventually ran out of like all socialists do, almost all the actual big ideas pretty much came in Blair's first term. If something had stopped Blair after his first term before Iraq he would be looked on as transformative.
    I didn't say New Labour was perfect.
    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 462
    I would say that the fragmentation of politics has happened in the United States, perhaps even more than in Europe as the US is a much more diverse country - it has just not been reflected in the party system, because of institutional factors (such as funding, incumbency advantage, first past the post and the identifier system) which make it virtually impossible for a new party to establish itself.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,520
    ydoethur said:

    Zephyr said:

    I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc

    Corbyn is every bit as much of a populist as Trump. He just has a rather different type of populism. The left/right axis is more of a circle at times with the far right not being very much different to the far left and vice-versa.

    Corbyn's populist far left appeal is little different to Trump's far right appeal. With the associations with antisemitism etc to boot too.

    Corbyn hardly puts popular into populism. But what made him leader wasn’t populism at all, but a desire to see a radical alternative in government after perceived wasted years of new labour and the coalition. It’s not a cult behind corbyn, but a cult wanting a proper labour government unlike the charlatan new labour one.

    Problem is for such a cult, it can’t guarantee another left leader to replace him in a fresh leadership contest, so Corbyn must stay there like the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne to protect their own self interest.

    So no, its not populism.
    I think that's to misunderstood 'populism.' If we take it as, 'offering policies without considering their impact, for the sole purpose of securing votes,' Corbyn definitely qualifies, as would Le Pen, Die Linke, Syriza, Chavez and Trump.

    Remember, Trump was less popular than Hilary Clinton, but nobody denies he's a populist.
    Corbyn and Le Pen believe intimately in their philosophy whereas Trump is entirely transactional. I don't know enough about your other examples.

    The most fascinating political debate of modern times IMO was the 2017 presidential election debate between Marinne Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron. This wasn't an argument of small differences. It went to the core of what it means to be French. Declaring my view, I am entirely on the side of the Macron vision. He didn't have it all his own way however, not least because Macron almost willfully sets out to be a caricature of what Le Pen bangs on about. (In fact his background is less entitled than Le Pen's)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 16,511
    FPT

    Off topic. Anyone heard from Big John Owls recently?

    I've been wondering how @bigjohnowls was getting on myself?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,371
    This is a very interstion article, rhanks.

    The key thing about raw materials is what you can do with them. Iron ore is not very useful until you realise that you can make iron out of it, and then the ore quickly becomes valuable. A couple of thousand years later steel gets invented and the values of iron ore jumps up again. I might just about be able to extract some Iron from the ore but I certainly couldn't make steel. If I find enough Iron ore it is best for me to sell it to someone who can make steel, or I could trade it with someone who can sell on to steel producer and so on. The iron ore traders make some money, but the pearson who really gets rich is the peron who makes ore into steel.

    The true amount of data being stored has grown unbelievably fast in the last 15 years. 20 years ago I used to think that there were possibly more printed articles being produced than were actually read. Now it is clear that there is way too much data being created to be be anlaysed, even by all the AI machines. All this raw data is almost worthless unless you can find someone who can analyse it, and that requires people with *appropriate* skills (just like the doctors and the lawyers). This was why the combination of data collected by facebook and selling it to Cambridge Analytica was so powerful. The former had collected masses of data of the right type and CA had the skills to be able to analyse it. They were paid handsomely for their work.

    In the professions mentioned in the main article, it is clear that Doctors and Lawyers have skills. Keeping up with retraining so that their skills remain apropriate is not easy, but it seems to me they are coping. Journalists also learn skills, through on the job training and years of experience. But the skills of a Journalist are rarely in (information) analysis but rather in writing well. Their skills are not in the right area to take advantage of this new influx of information.
    Joe Public has just as much skill in interpreting this information as a journalist does.

    I think the case with politicians is a bit different. Politicians clearly do have skills, but for some reason the skills which are being valued are changing from being policy based to presentational skills (think of the problems EdM had because his presentation skills were way lower than his policy skills). I'm not really sure this has much to do with lots of data being available, but much more to do with the increase in type and vareity of media outlets.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 64

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    At least 50% of the items on this list either were stupid things to do in their own right (and in several case the ramifications still carry on), involved spending unsustainable amounts of borrowed money in the presumption that the boom would never end, or in quite a few cases both.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,788
    Interesting piece, thanks Alastair. I don't donate money to many things, but one thing I do donate to is Wikipedia. When it first came about people were very sniffy about it, and it is very much only a starting point for reading up on a subject. But I wish I'd had access to something like it as a child.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 906
    Terrific article. Thank you. In would suggest a tentative different possibility, namely that in the present context what people would like best from government and civil administration would be a very high level of competence in every significant state/local authority led field.

    The problem is not difficult to exemplify. For example social care is an incomprehensible mess; there are schools which are not able to teach to the highest level both less able and the most able; prisons remain institutions dedicated to making bad people worse; drugs policy is beyond description; the police service is worse, and less available, than it was when we were a much less wealthy country; this rich country relies on poor countries to produce our medics in huge numbers. We can all make our own list.

    One could sum it up in the example of the way Brexit has been handled.

    I think that for the moment people have given up believing that there is any identifiable political leadership that has a proven track record of the sort of competence we expect. To expect it from the bodies which spend 40% + of our money is not unreasonable. Populism arises out of the failure of competence.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,371

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    You forgot to mention Iraq, leaving a deficit of over 10% of GDP per annum and the first bank run in a century.

    What's interesting is that if you take out the ones that are just about spending money, which they eventually ran out of like all socialists do, almost all the actual big ideas pretty much came in Blair's first term. If something had stopped Blair after his first term before Iraq he would be looked on as transformative.
    I didn't say New Labour was perfect.
    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.
    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    eristdoof said:

    This is a very interstion article, rhanks.

    The key thing about raw materials is what you can do with them. Iron ore is not very useful until you realise that you can make iron out of it, and then the ore quickly becomes valuable. A couple of thousand years later steel gets invented and the values of iron ore jumps up again. I might just about be able to extract some Iron from the ore but I certainly couldn't make steel. If I find enough Iron ore it is best for me to sell it to someone who can make steel, or I could trade it with someone who can sell on to steel producer and so on. The iron ore traders make some money, but the pearson who really gets rich is the peron who makes ore into steel.

    The true amount of data being stored has grown unbelievably fast in the last 15 years. 20 years ago I used to think that there were possibly more printed articles being produced than were actually read. Now it is clear that there is way too much data being created to be be anlaysed, even by all the AI machines. All this raw data is almost worthless unless you can find someone who can analyse it, and that requires people with *appropriate* skills (just like the doctors and the lawyers). This was why the combination of data collected by facebook and selling it to Cambridge Analytica was so powerful. The former had collected masses of data of the right type and CA had the skills to be able to analyse it. They were paid handsomely for their work.

    In the professions mentioned in the main article, it is clear that Doctors and Lawyers have skills. Keeping up with retraining so that their skills remain apropriate is not easy, but it seems to me they are coping. Journalists also learn skills, through on the job training and years of experience. But the skills of a Journalist are rarely in (information) analysis but rather in writing well. Their skills are not in the right area to take advantage of this new influx of information.
    Joe Public has just as much skill in interpreting this information as a journalist does.

    I think the case with politicians is a bit different. Politicians clearly do have skills, but for some reason the skills which are being valued are changing from being policy based to presentational skills (think of the problems EdM had because his presentation skills were way lower than his policy skills). I'm not really sure this has much to do with lots of data being available, but much more to do with the increase in type and vareity of media outlets.

    There’s an interesting parallel in the world of genetic based diagnosis

    There are three stages:

    1. Creating the data - the genetic analysis
    2. Interpreting the data - the diagnosis (using AI)
    3. Communicating the results

    1 is commoditised and 2 is heading that way. All of the value is how you take that information and make it understandable and accessible
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    U
    theProle said:

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    At least 50% of the items on this list either were stupid things to do in their own right (and in several case the ramifications still carry on), involved spending unsustainable amounts of borrowed money in the presumption that the boom would never end, or in quite a few cases both.
    If only Labour had kept its promise on fair votes. We - nor they - would be in this mess now. Palmer and his cohort are to blame.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,206
    Very interesting thread header.

    As an example, consider how tens of thousands bought the Stationary Office's Beveridge Report in 1940s, queuing in some cases.

    Can you imagine any voter queuing now for detailed information on policy?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,371
    tlg86 said:

    Interesting piece, thanks Alastair. I don't donate money to many things, but one thing I do donate to is Wikipedia. When it first came about people were very sniffy about it, and it is very much only a starting point for reading up on a subject. But I wish I'd had access to something like it as a child.

    Lots of uni lecturers criticise students for using Wikipedia. I don't. I do criticise them if Wikipedia is their only source. Wikipedia is a great source, you just need to know it is not 100% reliable, because there is no direct review process. If you want to get a quick first impression you can do a lot worse than Wikipedia.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT

    Off topic. Anyone heard from Big John Owls recently?

    I've been wondering how @bigjohnowls was getting on myself?
    He posted on the last thread.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,815
    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    eristdoof said:

    tlg86 said:

    Interesting piece, thanks Alastair. I don't donate money to many things, but one thing I do donate to is Wikipedia. When it first came about people were very sniffy about it, and it is very much only a starting point for reading up on a subject. But I wish I'd had access to something like it as a child.

    Lots of uni lecturers criticise students for using Wikipedia. I don't. I do criticise them if Wikipedia is their only source. Wikipedia is a great source, you just need to know it is not 100% reliable, because there is no direct review process. If you want to get a quick first impression you can do a lot worse than Wikipedia.

    WP has many skilled and conscientious editors, and where they (we!) have given an article close attention, it’s as comprehensive and readable source on a subject that you’ll come across. Sadly we’re talking a small minority of WP’s total offering, and there are all too many pages containing material that hasn’t had the same level of scrutiny.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    The golden legacy that followed the complete collapse of Tory policy, that led Ken Clarke to observe it was the first time he'd known a government without an economic policy? And remember that was homegrown, not one that started in America or in the Middle East like the one that blew Heath off course.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    edited July 7
    Interesting article and certainly many professions are providing that if they cannot provide a sufficiently high level of creativity or skill fewer people will pay for their services as they have the information to do it themselves.

    The rise of the internet and social media also means politicians and journalists are no longer seen as oracles of ideology and policy and administration than they were in say the 1950s.

    However in terms of winning elections it does not just mean charismatic populists of the extremes like Corbyn and Farage, Salvini and Tsipras, Trump and Bolsonaro and Lopez Obrador are the only winners. If a centrist leader has sufficient charisma and communication skills like say Macron or Trudeau, Cameron or Kurz they too can win but it was really the dawn of the TV rather than the internet which made charisma such a pivotal factor in winning elections from the 1960 Kennedy v Nixon debate on
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    edited July 7
    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    They have learned the lesson that (a) spending pledges are popular and (b) the voters don’t give a shit about financial rectitude.

    From a purely vote gathering perspective it’s not clear they are wrong
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,206
    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    "Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do."

    In 1979, the Thatcherites inherited a mess which was, in their own explanations, caused by the failure of post-war corporatism and Keynesian economics. The mess was just as much Heath's fault as Labour's according to the likes of Keith Joseph.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    eristdoof said:

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    You forgot to mention Iraq, leaving a deficit of over 10% of GDP per annum and the first bank run in a century.

    What's interesting is that if you take out the ones that are just about spending money, which they eventually ran out of like all socialists do, almost all the actual big ideas pretty much came in Blair's first term. If something had stopped Blair after his first term before Iraq he would be looked on as transformative.
    I didn't say New Labour was perfect.
    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.
    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    The story of the next GE might very well be that the Tories have neutralised all of their most effective attack lines against the opposition. How can any Tory attack others for financial irresponsibility or advocating radical changes without considering the risks, after their recent track record and the promises made by Bozo and Hunt?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.

      .
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    You forgot to mention Iraq, leaving a deficit of over 10% of GDP per annum and the first bank run in a century.

    What's interesting is that if you take out the ones that are just about spending money, which they eventually ran out of like all socialists do, almost all the actual big ideas pretty much came in Blair's first term. If something had stopped Blair after his first term before Iraq he would be looked on as transformative.
    I didn't say New Labour was perfect.
    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.
    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    The story of the next GE might very well be that the Tories have neutralised all of their most effective attack lines against the opposition. How can any Tory attack others for financial irresponsibility or advocating radical changes without considering the risks, after their recent track record and the promises made by Bozo and Hunt?
    Nah - they will just point to Hammond’s track record and the manifesto. It’s summer - most voters aren’t paying attention
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    They have learned the lesson that (a) spending pledges are popular and (b) the voters don’t give a shit about financial rectitude.

    From a purely vote gathering perspective it’s not clear they are wrong
    Except that those voters who want lots of money spent would probably prefer those parties that are going to spend the money on worthwhile things.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    edited July 7
    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    You forgot to mention Iraq, leaving a deficit of over 10% of GDP per annum and the first bank run in a century.

    What's interesting is that if you take out the ones that are just about spending money, which they eventually ran out of like all socialists do, almost all the actual big ideas pretty much came in Blair's first term. If something had stopped Blair after his first term before Iraq he would be looked on as transformative.
    I didn't say New Labour was perfect.
    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.
    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    The story of the next GE might very well be that the Tories have neutralised all of their most effective attack lines against the opposition. How can any Tory attack others for financial irresponsibility or advocating radical changes without considering the risks, after their recent track record and the promises made by Bozo and Hunt?
    The Tories tried tax rises and spending cuts in 2017 with May, they lost their majority.

    However tax cuts and spending rises under Boris trumps Corbyn's tax and spending rises
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    They have learned the lesson that (a) spending pledges are popular and (b) the voters don’t give a shit about financial rectitude.

    From a purely vote gathering perspective it’s not clear they are wrong
    Except that those voters who want lots of money spent would probably prefer those parties that are going to spend the money on worthwhile things.
    Disagree - voters want money spent on stuff that benefits them
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Go Netherlands!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    They have learned the lesson that (a) spending pledges are popular and (b) the voters don’t give a shit about financial rectitude.

    From a purely vote gathering perspective it’s not clear they are wrong
    Except that those voters who want lots of money spent would probably prefer those parties that are going to spend the money on worthwhile things.
    Disagree - voters want money spent on stuff that benefits them
    Corporation tax cuts and lower taxes for already wealthy pensioners don’t really cut the mustard, then?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,206
    Trump banging on about Biden again today. He's worried.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,408
    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,271

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    There are more ways other than economics to screw a nation over though. I’ve witnessed conservative governments destroying education through lack of funding the elimination of swathes of social services and support for things like youth clubs etc. the country likes to rebalance itself by changing the government to address issues they see as important. I’m yet to see one that can balance social provisions with economic competence.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 8,706

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    Not true at all. The 1964 - 70 Labour Government bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the incoming Tory Government. No departing Tory Government has managed to do either!
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 704

    Zephyr said:

    charlatan new labour one

    Can't wait for this meme to die.
    • National Minimum Wage
    • The Low Pay Commission
    • The Humans Right Act
    • Tripled spending on the NHS
    • 40k + new teachers
    • 200k + new school support staff
    • Scrapped Section 28
    • Good Friday Agreement
    • Decreased Homelessness 73%
    • Stopped Milosevic
    • Created the Winter Fuel Allowance
    • Free eye tests for over 60s
    • 16k+ more Police Officers
    • Free prescriptions for cancer patients
    • Removed nearly all hereditary peers from the legislature
    • Paid annual leave increased to 28 days
    • Increased child benefit by 28%
    • Helped end the civil war in Sierra Leone
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • Free Bus passes for over 60s
    • Devolution
    • Heart Disease deaths reduced by 150k
    • Cancer deaths reduced by 50K
    • Reduced he number of people on waiting lists by over 500K
    • Oversaw the rise in the number of school leavers with five good GCSEs from 45% to 76%
    • Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75%
    • Banned tobacco advertising in magazines, newspapers and billboards
    • Free breast cancer screening
    • Equalised age of consent
    • Public Smoking Ban
    • Wrote off 100% of the debt held by poorest countries
    Bloody New Labour. F*cking useless them.
    You forgot to mention Iraq, leaving a deficit of over 10% of GDP per annum and the first bank run in a century.

    What's interesting is that if you take out the ones that are just about spending money, which they eventually ran out of like all socialists do, almost all the actual big ideas pretty much came in Blair's first term. If something had stopped Blair after his first term before Iraq he would be looked on as transformative.
    The PB tories are awake. People who know the price of everything but rarely it's value.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    edited July 7

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    It was the dementia tax disaster. I was canvassing in a marginal seat after that and almost every other house had a furious voter saying May was threatening to take their house away and snatch their next egg for their children and grandchildren.

    That followed by May's 'I don't have a magic money tree' gaffe which went down like a lead balloon with any police and nurses I canvassed.

    At least Cameron had the sweetener of Osborne's inheritance tax cut plans to sweeten his austerity
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188

    Trump banging on about Biden again today. He's worried.

    He is worried about Biden, not about Pocohontas and Harris
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    HYUFD said:

    Trump banging on about Biden again today. He's worried.

    He is worried about Biden, not about Pocohontas and Harris
    I'm no expert on the Donald but doesn't that tweet look a bit unTrumplike and also, with the repeated refrain of substantially raise taxes, as if an election slogan is being given a trial run?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,155
    Great header. Spot on
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188

    HYUFD said:

    Trump banging on about Biden again today. He's worried.

    He is worried about Biden, not about Pocohontas and Harris
    I'm no expert on the Donald but doesn't that tweet look a bit unTrumplike and also, with the repeated refrain of substantially raise taxes, as if an election slogan is being given a trial run?
    I would not be surprised, inevitably the Trump re election campaign will hammer home the message the Democrats will raise your taxes
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 31,133

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    HYUFD said:

    Trump banging on about Biden again today. He's worried.

    He is worried about Biden, not about Pocohontas and Harris
    ABC news today has a poll with Biden leading Trump by 10% registered voters but Harris only leading Trump by 2%, Sanders only leading Trump by 1% and Trump tieing Warren and Buttigieg

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reaches-career-high-approval-faces-range-reelection/story?id=64117018
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 31,133
    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    That was froth that was never likely to be realised in a real election. No party has won that much in a General Election since 1966.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    They have learned the lesson that (a) spending pledges are popular and (b) the voters don’t give a shit about financial rectitude.

    From a purely vote gathering perspective it’s not clear they are wrong
    Except that those voters who want lots of money spent would probably prefer those parties that are going to spend the money on worthwhile things.
    Disagree - voters want money spent on stuff that benefits them
    Corporation tax cuts and lower taxes for already wealthy pensioners don’t really cut the mustard, then?
    It does for pensioners
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 1,103
    edited July 7
    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    edited July 7

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    That was froth that was never likely to be realised in a real election. No party has won that much in a General Election since 1966.
    With the LDs subdued and no Brexit Party and a dieing UKIP and Corbyn Labour leader May could have matched the 49% Macmillan and Eden got in 1959 and 1955 or even the 46% Heath got in 1970 but an abysmal campaign ensured she did not
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Great defending from Netherlands
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    They have learned the lesson that (a) spending pledges are popular and (b) the voters don’t give a shit about financial rectitude.

    From a purely vote gathering perspective it’s not clear they are wrong
    Except that those voters who want lots of money spent would probably prefer those parties that are going to spend the money on worthwhile things.
    Disagree - voters want money spent on stuff that benefits them
    Corporation tax cuts and lower taxes for already wealthy pensioners don’t really cut the mustard, then?
    It does for pensioners
    If the Tories want a future they need to start thinking about people actually of working age.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,408
    Mr. Glenn, yes.

    She squandered a 20 point lead. A relatively high polling (compared to election results rather than earlier polls) was because the Lib Dems were flat on their backs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Agreed
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 31,133

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    Vote distribution is the key to whether the '45%' interchangeable Tory/Brexit vote 'landslide' actually happens. There's no point gaining 10-20% of the vote in safe Labour seats, which Labour still win, but losing middle-class and well educated remain-y seats to the Lib Dems.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    We need an MRP YouGov poll. Whip-round anyone?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    They have learned the lesson that (a) spending pledges are popular and (b) the voters don’t give a shit about financial rectitude.

    From a purely vote gathering perspective it’s not clear they are wrong
    Except that those voters who want lots of money spent would probably prefer those parties that are going to spend the money on worthwhile things.
    Disagree - voters want money spent on stuff that benefits them
    Corporation tax cuts and lower taxes for already wealthy pensioners don’t really cut the mustard, then?
    It does for pensioners
    If the Tories want a future they need to start thinking about people actually of working age.
    I’m not defending the policies
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    0-0 half time. USA getting a run for their money here.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,093
    Given the references to lawyers, I’d be interested to learn Mr Meeks’ on the thoughts of Richard Susskind.

    A slightly more picky point - I’m not sure that gold and silver from the New World caused inflation throughout Europe for centuries (there are wider issues at play such as increased urbanising and population increases from an artificially depressed base) although it did wholly destroy the Spanish economy in the medium term. Views vary (much like industrial revolution vs the more accurate though less exciting, industrial evolution).
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    IanB2 said:

    0-0 half time. USA getting a run for their money here.

    This could be the breakout world cup for ladies' soccerball, like London 2012 for the paralympics. It is not universal by any means but there does seem to be much more interest this year.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 1,103

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
    I am not convinced.

    Many Conservatives will allow tribal loyalty to defeat their better instincts. On a similar vein, a moderate loyalist I know in Northern Ireland explained to me that he arrives in the polling booth with the intention to vote Alliance, but he fears that a Sinn Fein voter won't reciprocate which means by the time he leaves he always votes DUP. Tribal Tories I fear will so the same.

    If anti-Tories cannot arrange electoral pacts then we are done for, and with Corbyn blindfold in the driving seat thst will not happen.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    It was the dementia tax disaster. I was canvassing in a marginal seat after that and almost every other house had a furious voter saying May was threatening to take their house away and snatch their next egg for their children and grandchildren.

    That followed by May's 'I don't have a magic money tree' gaffe which went down like a lead balloon with any police and nurses I canvassed.

    At least Cameron had the sweetener of Osborne's inheritance tax cut plans to sweeten his austerity
    And ‘austerity’ was a marketing myth outside the police and local government.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,906

    Trump banging on about Biden again today. He's worried.

    Or double bluff. Pretend to be worried about Biden so that the Dems pick him and pass over the one he is really worried about - Harris.

    Massive IQ after all, Donald Trump. Perhaps the smartest guy ever to be president. In fact strike those last three words. They are not needed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    edited July 7

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
    I am not advocating the Tories fully accommodate Farage, that requires them to Brexit with No Deal only, Boris still wants to Brexit with a Deal ideally but if not without a Deal.

    Ashcroft's poll today shows a Boris led Tory Party would lead with Leavers but be 4th with Remainers, a Hunt led Tories would only be second with Leavers behind the Brexit Party but still 4th with Remainers even if a little higher with them than a Boris led Tory Party

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/#more-16028
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    edited July 7
    notme2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    It was the dementia tax disaster. I was canvassing in a marginal seat after that and almost every other house had a furious voter saying May was threatening to take their house away and snatch their next egg for their children and grandchildren.

    That followed by May's 'I don't have a magic money tree' gaffe which went down like a lead balloon with any police and nurses I canvassed.

    At least Cameron had the sweetener of Osborne's inheritance tax cut plans to sweeten his austerity
    And ‘austerity’ was a marketing myth outside the police and local government.
    Someone posted research showing the areas hardest hit by austerity went on to vote Leave. Another shot in the foot from master strategist George Osborne.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,271

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
    Any Tory deal with farage will see off any remnants of the Ken Clarke wing of the party including significant numbers of MPs
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,815
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:



    Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.

    You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
    Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.

    The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.

    Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
    So where is the evidence that Hunt and Johnson have learned from this experience?
    They have learned the lesson that (a) spending pledges are popular and (b) the voters don’t give a shit about financial rectitude.

    From a purely vote gathering perspective it’s not clear they are wrong
    Except that those voters who want lots of money spent would probably prefer those parties that are going to spend the money on worthwhile things.
    Disagree - voters want money spent on stuff that benefits them
    Corporation tax cuts and lower taxes for already wealthy pensioners don’t really cut the mustard, then?
    It does for pensioners
    If the Tories want a future they need to start thinking about people actually of working age.
    The ones who make their living from corporations you mean?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    edited July 7
    kinabalu said:

    Trump banging on about Biden again today. He's worried.

    Or double bluff. Pretend to be worried about Biden so that the Dems pick him and pass over the one he is really worried about - Harris.

    Massive IQ after all, Donald Trump. Perhaps the smartest guy ever to be president. In fact strike those last three words. They are not needed.
    Biden leads Trump by 10% today with registered voters in an ABC poll, Harris leads Trump only by 2%, the same popular vote lead as Hillary had in 2016 when she lost the Electoral College

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reaches-career-high-approval-faces-range-reelection/story?id=64117018
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 1,103
    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
    Any Tory deal with farage will see off any remnants of the Ken Clarke wing of the party including significant numbers of MPs
    Sadly, no it won't.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Second half. Go Netherlands!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    matt said:

    Given the references to lawyers, I’d be interested to learn Mr Meeks’ on the thoughts of Richard Susskind.

    He could do with contemplating Amara’s law more often but he’s definitely on the right lines.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    So this afternoon I'm following Mike Ashley's helicopter on Flight Tracker to try and deduce the current status of the forthcoming takeover...

    He's currently flying from Newcastle, via the training ground, to what looks like London.

    Please send psychiatric help.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    edited July 7

    Vote distribution is the key to whether the '45%' interchangeable Tory/Brexit vote 'landslide' actually happens. There's no point gaining 10-20% of the vote in safe Labour seats, which Labour still win, but losing middle-class and well educated remain-y seats to the Lib Dems.

    2/3 of seats voted Leave and over 70% of Tory seats.

    The Tories could easily pick up 50 to 60 Labour marginal Leave seats under Boris even if they lose 10 to 20 Tory marginal Remain seats to the LDs that is still a net gain of 40.

    Even if they lost 10 to the SNP too in Scottish Remain seats still a net gain of 30 making 348 Tory seats with only 326 needed for a majority
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    HYUFD said:

    Vote distribution is the key to whether the '45%' interchangeable Tory/Brexit vote 'landslide' actually happens. There's no point gaining 10-20% of the vote in safe Labour seats, which Labour still win, but losing middle-class and well educated remain-y seats to the Lib Dems.

    2/3 of seats voted Leave
    What has that got to do with anything?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,140

    Intriguing article - a new angle, not something you see every day. Thanks, Alastair.

    A factor not mentioned is that the flood of information has made many people feel it's all too complicated. They were comfortable taking a view on, say, whether taxes should rise 2p to fund a better NHS. But something as multifaceted as Brexit defeats almost everyone. So they give up, and go for the simplest available options - either Revoke (hello, LibDems) or No Deal (hi, Nigel). People, from May to Corbyn, who attempt to introduce nuances and yes-buts are regarded with irritation.

    Indeed.

    What we have is the twatterisation of politics.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,271

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
    Any Tory deal with farage will see off any remnants of the Ken Clarke wing of the party including significant numbers of MPs
    Sadly, no it won't.
    I know a few older style tories who voted lib dem in the euros and if they go near farage will not go back.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011

    HYUFD said:

    Vote distribution is the key to whether the '45%' interchangeable Tory/Brexit vote 'landslide' actually happens. There's no point gaining 10-20% of the vote in safe Labour seats, which Labour still win, but losing middle-class and well educated remain-y seats to the Lib Dems.

    2/3 of seats voted Leave
    What has that got to do with anything?
    Especially as it is no longer true based on latest polls
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    HYUFD said:

    Vote distribution is the key to whether the '45%' interchangeable Tory/Brexit vote 'landslide' actually happens. There's no point gaining 10-20% of the vote in safe Labour seats, which Labour still win, but losing middle-class and well educated remain-y seats to the Lib Dems.

    2/3 of seats voted Leave and over 70% of Tory seats.

    The Tories could easily pick up 50 to 60 Labour marginal Leave seats under Boris even if they lose 10 to 20 Tory marginal Remain seats to the LDs that is still a net gain of 40.

    Even if they lost 10 to the SNP too in Scottish Remain seats still a net gain of 30 making 348 Tory seats with only 326 needed for a majority
    Which Labour seats?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,140
    Thanks AM for some interesting thoughts.

    For generations, politicians have presented themselves as experts: “the man in Whitehall knows best”. Now he doesn’t. Anyone who is interested can bury themselves in reliable official statistics, public reports (and those of thinktanks) and review comparative studies from other countries.

    I will suggest that its those people who are sceptical of whatever the prevailing orthodoxies are who are more likely to do their own research.

    Perhaps PB should have a special day when we all have to provide some unexpected fact with differs from common knowledge or the official line.

    I'm sure it would open many of our minds a little bit more.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,275
    notme2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    It was the dementia tax disaster. I was canvassing in a marginal seat after that and almost every other house had a furious voter saying May was threatening to take their house away and snatch their next egg for their children and grandchildren.

    That followed by May's 'I don't have a magic money tree' gaffe which went down like a lead balloon with any police and nurses I canvassed.

    At least Cameron had the sweetener of Osborne's inheritance tax cut plans to sweeten his austerity
    And ‘austerity’ was a marketing myth outside the police and local government.
    Thank goodness police and local government are unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 1,103
    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
    Any Tory deal with farage will see off any remnants of the Ken Clarke wing of the party including significant numbers of MPs
    Sadly, no it won't.
    I know a few older style tories who voted lib dem in the euros and if they go near farage will not go back.
    So let us assume you are right and 5% defect to the Greens, the LDs or the Monster Raving Loony Party. That leaves Johnson-Farage alliance on circa 40% and the next nearest party on circa 20% plus. Under fptp, Nigey and Boris between them clean up.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
    Any Tory deal with farage will see off any remnants of the Ken Clarke wing of the party including significant numbers of MPs
    Sadly, no it won't.
    I know a few older style tories who voted lib dem in the euros and if they go near farage will not go back.
    So let us assume you are right and 5% defect to the Greens, the LDs or the Monster Raving Loony Party. That leaves Johnson-Farage alliance on circa 40% and the next nearest party on circa 20% plus. Under fptp, Nigey and Boris between them clean up.
    Depends on the distribution of the vote and not all Brexit Party supporters will vote Tory in the event of an alliance.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    Even based on 'HYUFD maths', the Tories will lose one voter to the Lib Dems for every two they gain back from Farage. Accommodating Farage shrinks the Tory + Brexit Party pie.
    Any Tory deal with farage will see off any remnants of the Ken Clarke wing of the party including significant numbers of MPs
    Sadly, no it won't.
    I know a few older style tories who voted lib dem in the euros and if they go near farage will not go back.
    So let us assume you are right and 5% defect to the Greens, the LDs or the Monster Raving Loony Party. That leaves Johnson-Farage alliance on circa 40% and the next nearest party on circa 20% plus. Under fptp, Nigey and Boris between them clean up.
    If the Tories do strike an “alliance” with the far right, it’ll be worse for them than that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,906
    HYUFD said:

    Biden leads Trump by 10% today with registered voters in an ABC poll, Harris leads Trump only by 2%, the same popular vote lead as Hillary had in 2016 when she lost the Electoral College

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reaches-career-high-approval-faces-range-reelection/story?id=64117018

    I'm more than happy with that 2% for Kamala at this stage. The gap will grow when she hits top gear. She's Obama in a skirt.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252

    notme2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    It was the dementia tax disaster. I was canvassing in a marginal seat after that and almost every other house had a furious voter saying May was threatening to take their house away and snatch their next egg for their children and grandchildren.

    That followed by May's 'I don't have a magic money tree' gaffe which went down like a lead balloon with any police and nurses I canvassed.

    At least Cameron had the sweetener of Osborne's inheritance tax cut plans to sweeten his austerity
    And ‘austerity’ was a marketing myth outside the police and local government.
    Someone posted research showing the areas hardest hit by austerity went on to vote Leave. Another shot in the foot from master strategist George Osborne.
    Can you prove causation?

    IIRC (memory of IFS stats) the top decline was badly hit, the second decile moderately badly hit, 3-9 about even, decile 10 slightly hit.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 8,706

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    May won 42.4% of the vote. Do you really think she could have got much more than that with a better campaign? The hard reality is that despite the missteps, May just about maxed out the potential Tory vote without UKIP or the Brexit Party.
    Not entirely true, May was polling up to 47 or 48% before the dementia tax disaster and 'no Magic Money tree' gaffes.
    A figure not dissimilar to where the Tory-Brexit Alliance are close to now. This 45% of the electorate are interchangeable between the two parties. The opposition parties are more fragmented now than in 2017 which means if Johnson can accomodate Farage a landslide beckons, and the rest of us who are not of that persuasion are really stuck up a gumtree.
    A significant number of Brexit Party voters would not switch to the Tories - just as many 2015 UKIP voters declined to do so.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,140

    notme2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, it wasn't economics that caused May's 2017 electoral disaster (indeed, she shelved Hammond utterly and refused to campaign on the Conservatives' then strong point). It was the delinquent approach to dementia care, a failure to appear at the debates, and complacency.

    It was the dementia tax disaster. I was canvassing in a marginal seat after that and almost every other house had a furious voter saying May was threatening to take their house away and snatch their next egg for their children and grandchildren.

    That followed by May's 'I don't have a magic money tree' gaffe which went down like a lead balloon with any police and nurses I canvassed.

    At least Cameron had the sweetener of Osborne's inheritance tax cut plans to sweeten his austerity
    And ‘austerity’ was a marketing myth outside the police and local government.
    Thank goodness police and local government are unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
    They might be less important to the average voter than Morissons now having Barista Bars as well as cafes.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 3,512

    HYUFD said:

    Vote distribution is the key to whether the '45%' interchangeable Tory/Brexit vote 'landslide' actually happens. There's no point gaining 10-20% of the vote in safe Labour seats, which Labour still win, but losing middle-class and well educated remain-y seats to the Lib Dems.

    2/3 of seats voted Leave and over 70% of Tory seats.

    The Tories could easily pick up 50 to 60 Labour marginal Leave seats under Boris even if they lose 10 to 20 Tory marginal Remain seats to the LDs that is still a net gain of 40.

    Even if they lost 10 to the SNP too in Scottish Remain seats still a net gain of 30 making 348 Tory seats with only 326 needed for a majority
    Which Labour seats?
    I imagine they'll get some. One or two.
This discussion has been closed.