Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeremy Corbyn is an unconventional politician, the normal rule

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 4 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeremy Corbyn is an unconventional politician, the normal rules of politics and polling don’t apply to him

There’s been quite a lot of comment about Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour not polling well enough against the Tories to ensure he becomes Prime Minister after the next general election. But my hypothesis is that the only time we shouldn’t judge Corbyn in periods outside of a general election campaign.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    Thank goodness I'm in the US.

    Here we have leaders like... oh, wait...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,252
    I see a man blinged up on a red carpet but no Oscar tips from Roger. What sort of ineptness is this and when did people stop saying ineptitude? I blame that Michael Gove.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 4

    I see a man blinged up on a red carpet but no Oscar tips from Roger. What sort of ineptness is this and when did people stop saying ineptitude? I blame that Michael Gove.

    Haven’t the they added some new categories this year, such as Best Performance on the Casting Couch, Best Pedophile, Best Hypocrite and Best Virtue Signalling?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154
    rcs1000 said:

    Thank goodness I'm in the US.

    Here we have leaders like... oh, wait...

    You reckon Trump will start a trade war?
    I suspect he’s bluffing.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,252
    Sandpit said:

    I see a man blinged up on a red carpet but no Oscar tips from Roger. What sort of ineptness is this and when did people stop saying ineptitude? I blame that Michael Gove.

    Haven the they added some new categories this year, such as Best Performance on the Casting Couch, Best Pedophile, Best Hypocrite and Best Virtue Signalling?
    This is no joking matter. We need our Oscar winnings to pay for Cheltenham in 10 days or so (clashing with that nice Mr Hammond's spring statement).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    Sandpit said:

    I see a man blinged up on a red carpet but no Oscar tips from Roger. What sort of ineptness is this and when did people stop saying ineptitude? I blame that Michael Gove.

    Best Virtue Signalling?
    Spoiled for choice.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    Good thread TSE - agree entirely - underestimate Corbyn at your peril - as many on the Labour back benches would attest.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 4
    On topic, we blues had better get our ducks in a row before the next election. The personal attacks have been done and failed, the campaign needs to be all about the economy and housing, jobs and finances. And no manifesto surprises that can be given catchy perjorative names by our opponents.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    Sandpit said:

    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
    Because he’ll be responsible for significantly enhancing the payoff packages of retiring Commissioners? To pick a complete unrelated coincidence out of the air...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,252
    Hubristic Labour supporters should not forget that ge2017 featured a perfect storm of Conservative incompetence, with a Crosby-directed campaign based round the charisma-free and camera-shy Prime Minister parroting "strong and stable" even as she ditched a Nick-and-Fiona dementia tax proposal that might have been popular had any minister broken Crosby's omerta and explained it, and lurid attacks on Corbyn for being nice to places no British voter could find on a map after elebenty years of Tory education cuts.

    CCHQ surely can't be that bad again. Otoh, Brexit.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, we blues had better get our ducks in a row before the next election. The personal attacks have been done and failed, the campaign needs to be all about the economy and housing, jobs and finances. And no manifesto surprises that can be given catchy perjorative names by our opponents.

    Oink, flap. Oink, flap.

    May isn't the leader to do that. And the people lining up to replace her - e.g. Boris or JRM, or outsiders like Hammond - are not either.

    Why has Corbyn captured so many people (admittedly as well as repelling others)? He has a vision, and has rarely swayed from that vision. He has a certainty that things *can* be better for *me* (where *me* is an average Joe on the street). Things aren't working for *me*, and he says he'll get them working for *me*.

    Many people won't look at the details of the vision, and besides, many of the things you and I see as negatives are historic irrelevances to many voters. Why do soundbites and labels matter in politics? Because most people don't have time to look into every little detail, and therefore rely on the broad-brush details. Hence why the the manifesto commitments on adult social care are forgotten, but the 'dementia tax' is remembered.

    Certainty matters. Vision inspire. And Corbyn has certainty and vision by the gallon, mainly because he is uncaring about the realities of the world.

    So how do the Conservatives fight this? By having a vision, and delivering good government for the average Joe *now*, whilst they have power.

    Yep, the Conservatives are screwed.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    Morning all

    I see there was some discussion on the previous thread about BBC Brexit bias...

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,252

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, we blues had better get our ducks in a row before the next election. The personal attacks have been done and failed, the campaign needs to be all about the economy and housing, jobs and finances. And no manifesto surprises that can be given catchy perjorative names by our opponents.

    Oink, flap. Oink, flap.

    May isn't the leader to do that. And the people lining up to replace her - e.g. Boris or JRM, or outsiders like Hammond - are not either.

    Why has Corbyn captured so many people (admittedly as well as repelling others)? He has a vision, and has rarely swayed from that vision. He has a certainty that things *can* be better for *me* (where *me* is an average Joe on the street). Things aren't working for *me*, and he says he'll get them working for *me*.

    Many people won't look at the details of the vision, and besides, many of the things you and I see as negatives are historic irrelevances to many voters. Why do soundbites and labels matter in politics? Because most people don't have time to look into every little detail, and therefore rely on the broad-brush details. Hence why the the manifesto commitments on adult social care are forgotten, but the 'dementia tax' is remembered.

    Certainty matters. Vision inspire. And Corbyn has certainty and vision by the gallon, mainly because he is uncaring about the realities of the world.

    So how do the Conservatives fight this? By having a vision, and delivering good government for the average Joe *now*, whilst they have power.

    Yep, the Conservatives are screwed.
    Yes, Corbyn recognises Things aren't working for *me* but the paradox is that so did Theresa May: remember JAM -- just about managing? The difference is that Theresa May is Prime Minister, so it is her job to solve problems, not just moan about them.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154
    Scott_P said:

    Morning all

    I see there was some discussion on the previous thread about BBC Brexit bias...

    It’s an outrage they don’t invite more UKIP MPs on television.
    Oh wait...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,587
    Scott_P said:

    Morning all

    I see there was some discussion on the previous thread about BBC Brexit bias...

    Would probably carry more weight if it wasn't restricted to just MEPs.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    RobD said:

    Would probably carry more weight if it wasn't restricted to just MEPs.

    Except that's the whole point.

    Want to talk about the EU and how it operates? Let's get some people who work there on the show, perhaps...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    Meanwhile, voting is "damaging to democracy"...

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, we blues had better get our ducks in a row before the next election. The personal attacks have been done and failed, the campaign needs to be all about the economy and housing, jobs and finances. And no manifesto surprises that can be given catchy perjorative names by our opponents.

    Oink, flap. Oink, flap.

    May isn't the leader to do that. And the people lining up to replace her - e.g. Boris or JRM, or outsiders like Hammond - are not either.

    Why has Corbyn captured so many people (admittedly as well as repelling others)? He has a vision, and has rarely swayed from that vision. He has a certainty that things *can* be better for *me* (where *me* is an average Joe on the street). Things aren't working for *me*, and he says he'll get them working for *me*.

    Many people won't look at the details of the vision, and besides, many of the things you and I see as negatives are historic irrelevances to many voters. Why do soundbites and labels matter in politics? Because most people don't have time to look into every little detail, and therefore rely on the broad-brush details. Hence why the the manifesto commitments on adult social care are forgotten, but the 'dementia tax' is remembered.

    Certainty matters. Vision inspire. And Corbyn has certainty and vision by the gallon, mainly because he is uncaring about the realities of the world.

    So how do the Conservatives fight this? By having a vision, and delivering good government for the average Joe *now*, whilst they have power.

    Yep, the Conservatives are screwed.
    Yes, Corbyn recognises Things aren't working for *me* but the paradox is that so did Theresa May: remember JAM -- just about managing? The difference is that Theresa May is Prime Minister, so it is her job to solve problems, not just moan about them.
    I think that once the Brexit stuff goes a little quieter we'll see more on the JAMs, it is something that the PM genuinely cares about.

    Her conference speech that certain metropolitan Remain supporters took to be about themselves, was actually about the Googles and Facebooks, the Richard Bransons and Philip Greens who make a lot of money in the UK and pay very little in taxes on it. Mrs May wants to be able to cut taxes for the average man in the street before the next election.

    I'm going to guess we'll see something on this in the forthcoming Spring Statement from the Chancellor.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,587
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Would probably carry more weight if it wasn't restricted to just MEPs.

    Except that's the whole point.

    Want to talk about the EU and how it operates? Let's get some people who work there on the show, perhaps...
    So who from UKIP should they have invited? And it isn't as if they he was the only guest on the show, the panel is usually reasonably balanced between the parties.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, we blues had better get our ducks in a row before the next election. The personal attacks have been done and failed, the campaign needs to be all about the economy and housing, jobs and finances. And no manifesto surprises that can be given catchy perjorative names by our opponents.

    Oink, flap. Oink, flap.

    May isn't the leader to do that. And the people lining up to replace her - e.g. Boris or JRM, or outsiders like Hammond - are not either.

    Why has Corbyn captured so many people (admittedly as well as repelling others)? He has a vision, and has rarely swayed from that vision. He has a certainty that things *can* be better for *me* (where *me* is an average Joe on the street). Things aren't working for *me*, and he says he'll get them working for *me*.

    Many people won't look at the details of the vision, and besides, many of the things you and I see as negatives are historic irrelevances to many voters. Why do soundbites and labels matter in politics? Because most people don't have time to look into every little detail, and therefore rely on the broad-brush details. Hence why the the manifesto commitments on adult social care are forgotten, but the 'dementia tax' is remembered.

    Certainty matters. Vision inspire. And Corbyn has certainty and vision by the gallon, mainly because he is uncaring about the realities of the world.

    So how do the Conservatives fight this? By having a vision, and delivering good government for the average Joe *now*, whilst they have power.

    Yep, the Conservatives are screwed.
    Yes, Corbyn recognises Things aren't working for *me* but the paradox is that so did Theresa May: remember JAM -- just about managing? The difference is that Theresa May is Prime Minister, so it is her job to solve problems, not just moan about them.
    Exactly. Corbyn can imagine his perfect socialist world, where everyone gets everything equally, the nights are never cold, it is always summertime, and interesting manhole covers lie down the centre of cobbled streets. He can sell that vision, however unrealistic the reality.

    The Conservatives are in power and need to deliver. But they can deliver according to a central vision for the country. They are not.

    And if they do not, Labour will create a vision of what the Conservatives want - one of forced servitude, dark clouds and perpetual rain, and hooray-Henrys pursuing poor peasants for sport. It's never good to let your opponents set your narrative.

    Blair managed to sell a vision for the country that got him into power. He managed to maintain that vision for over five years before the fraud started to be uncovered. It is possible.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    RobD said:

    So who from UKIP should they have invited?

    There are MEPs from other parties...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 4
    Scott_P said:

    Morning all

    I see there was some discussion on the previous thread about BBC Brexit bias...

    LOL, that’s hillarious. Data cherry-picking worthy of a Lib Dem bar chart.

    Don’t the parties get to nominate the guests for QT anyway, so for every Dan Hannan there’s also a Ken Clarke, for every JRM an Amber Rudd?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,587
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    So who from UKIP should they have invited?

    There are MEPs from other parties...
    I'm not sure how the panels are selected, but either the BBC thought that MPs rather than MEPs would be more effective at answering the questions from the audience, or the parties did.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    RobD said:

    I'm not sure how the panels are selected, but either the BBC thought that MPs rather than MEPs would be more effective at answering the questions from the audience, or the parties did.

    Or they thought anti-EU voices were more valid, which is where we came in...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Sandpit said:

    I think that once the Brexit stuff goes a little quieter we'll see more on the JAMs, it is something that the PM genuinely cares about.

    Her conference speech that certain metropolitan Remain supporters took to be about themselves, was actually about the Googles and Facebooks, the Richard Bransons and Philip Greens who make a lot of money in the UK and pay very little in taxes on it. Mrs May wants to be able to cut taxes for the average man in the street before the next election.

    I'm going to guess we'll see something on this in the forthcoming Spring Statement from the Chancellor.

    "once the Brexit stuff goes a little quieter"

    I see the problem. ;)

    "Her conference speech that certain metropolitan Remain supporters took to be about themselves, was actually about ..."

    And that highlights another problem perfectly. If you're having to interpret such a speech, to tell people what it really means, and you're on the side of the speech-giver, then it's a failure.

    Besides, it can't be done in one speech. It has to be done consistently over time, so the message seeps through and enough of the public start believing that you believe it. Keep on bashing the message, and get your team to do the same.

    I'm also fearful that 'cutting taxes for the average man in the street' is not a vote-winner. The other side of that is 'reducing public services', and they've already suffered big hits, and those hits are often very unpopular. It's time for austerity to end.

    If I were the Conservatives, I might be tempted to go for slight tax increases with the message: "The public services have been hit. We'll tax the rich / big organisations more highly, but we will spend it more wisely than Labour." Try to offset those tax rises with other measures to counteract negative effects. But it's the message, the vision, that matters.

    Then again, that's my sort of wish, so I'm biased.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,587
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    I'm not sure how the panels are selected, but either the BBC thought that MPs rather than MEPs would be more effective at answering the questions from the audience, or the parties did.

    Or they thought anti-EU voices were more valid, which is where we came in...
    Was it the case that the panel was only anti-EU voices each week? I find that hard to believe.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517

    And that highlights another problem perfectly. If you're having to interpret such a speech, to tell people what it really means, and you're on the side of the speech-giver, then it's a failure.

    How did the latest, greatest speech go down in the EU?



    Oh...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    Morning all

    I see there was some discussion on the previous thread about BBC Brexit bias...

    LOL, that’s hillarious. Data cherry-picking worthy of a Lib Dem bar chart.

    Don’t the parties get to nominate the guests for QT anyway, so for every Dan Hannan there’s also a Ken Clarke, for every JRM an Amber Rudd?
    I think, and I could be wrong, that there is exactly one LibDem MEP.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,099
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Thank goodness I'm in the US.

    Here we have leaders like... oh, wait...

    You reckon Trump will start a trade war?
    I suspect he’s bluffing.
    I've been trying to follow what is going on in the Whitehouse from US news sources, and to be honest, it is difficult for even the most experienced Westwing watcher to even guess what is going to happen next. But one thing that is becoming clear is that while POTUS close staff and family bail out, fired, leave somehow, there are fewer and fewer people who can tell him "No!". Replacements are virtually non existent. Then the leavers are all being approached by Mueller and the FBI to spill their guts in return for shorter prison terms. Even close family are not immune. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that the Donald is becoming completely paranoid. Is he bluffing? There is no one around him to divert attention away from his ramblings and cool down his rhetoric. Probably the best predictor is in the script of Shakespeare's "Lear"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    Morning all

    I see there was some discussion on the previous thread about BBC Brexit bias...

    LOL, that’s hillarious. Data cherry-picking worthy of a Lib Dem bar chart.

    Don’t the parties get to nominate the guests for QT anyway, so for every Dan Hannan there’s also a Ken Clarke, for every JRM an Amber Rudd?
    I think, and I could be wrong, that there is exactly one LibDem MEP.
    I think you’re right. Caroline Bearder from the South East region
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/european_elections/results.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    OchEye said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Thank goodness I'm in the US.

    Here we have leaders like... oh, wait...

    You reckon Trump will start a trade war?
    I suspect he’s bluffing.
    I've been trying to follow what is going on in the Whitehouse from US news sources, and to be honest, it is difficult for even the most experienced Westwing watcher to even guess what is going to happen next. But one thing that is becoming clear is that while POTUS close staff and family bail out, fired, leave somehow, there are fewer and fewer people who can tell him "No!". Replacements are virtually non existent. Then the leavers are all being approached by Mueller and the FBI to spill their guts in return for shorter prison terms. Even close family are not immune. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that the Donald is becoming completely paranoid. Is he bluffing? There is no one around him to divert attention away from his ramblings and cool down his rhetoric. Probably the best predictor is in the script of Shakespeare's "Lear"
    You think Ivanka is going to be executed and Trump will die holding her corpse in his arms?

    I don't think things are going to get quite so bad as that (although I suppose with Trump you can never tell).

    A withdrawal from the 2020 race before the primary season would be my guess.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 583
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    So who from UKIP should they have invited?

    There are MEPs from other parties...
    The BBC is not unbiased - it has an agenda.

    On foreign affairs, it is pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia, and pro-Saudi and hostile to their opponents, e.g. in Iran, Yemen and Syria, where it describes the legitimate government as the Assad regime.

    It is also a strong supporter/promoter of multi-culturalism, ethnic diversity and sexual deviation. For example, the choice of speakers on Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" does not reflect the predominant WASP composition of the British population.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 843



    "once the Brexit stuff goes a little quieter"

    I see the problem. ;)

    Brexit won't go away but unless something goes really bad with Brexit, which would probably benefit Labour anyway, my assumption would be that Brexit would be at most as much of an issue as it was at this election but more likely less of an issue. My other thought, although it is just a hunch, is that the losers of the referendum, remain voters, are probably more likely to hold onto stronger views over a longer time regarding Brexit than the winners.

    All assuming we don't get a soft Brexit which could throw up a different sort of considerations.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    I'm sorry to bang on about this, but the Trump steel and aluminium tariffs are bizarre.

    If the plan was to protect the US steel industry from subsidised steel, he could have introduced targeted tariffs, focusing on places where steel has significant government support (like... errrr... China).

    If he wanted general protection, he could have updated the US tariff schedule so that tariffs for non-FTA countries (like China and the EU) were higher.

    Those would have been perfectly sensible, legitimate ways to achieve his goal. (If his goal was protection of the US steel industry.)

    Instead he announced an across the board 25% tariff for steel, including for partners (like Canada) with whom the US had an FTA. Why? It's certainly in breach of the terms of NAFTA. The Canadian steel industry is essentially all owned by Nucor and US Steel anyway. The mini-mills around the Great Lakes are often buying US power anyway. It makes no sense unless you wanted to really piss off your closest ally, and say to the world "hey, having a free trade agreement with us means nothing".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Somewhat surprised to open my local rag here in the sandpit, to see a comment piece from Lynton Crosby on the differences between the East and West when it comes to politics and media. A good read.
    https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/in-the-pessimistic-west-an-aura-of-negativity-feeds-into-a-growing-political-divide-1.709389
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    Morning all

    I see there was some discussion on the previous thread about BBC Brexit bias...

    LOL, that’s hillarious. Data cherry-picking worthy of a Lib Dem bar chart.

    Don’t the parties get to nominate the guests for QT anyway, so for every Dan Hannan there’s also a Ken Clarke, for every JRM an Amber Rudd?
    I think, and I could be wrong, that there is exactly one LibDem MEP.
    I think you’re right. Caroline Bearder from the South East region
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/european_elections/results.html
    Apparently she's President of the Liberal Democrat European group. The election to that must have been thrilling.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm sorry to bang on about this, but the Trump steel and aluminium tariffs are bizarre.

    If the plan was to protect the US steel industry from subsidised steel, he could have introduced targeted tariffs, focusing on places where steel has significant government support (like... errrr... China).

    If he wanted general protection, he could have updated the US tariff schedule so that tariffs for non-FTA countries (like China and the EU) were higher.

    Those would have been perfectly sensible, legitimate ways to achieve his goal. (If his goal was protection of the US steel industry.)

    Instead he announced an across the board 25% tariff for steel, including for partners (like Canada) with whom the US had an FTA. Why? It's certainly in breach of the terms of NAFTA. The Canadian steel industry is essentially all owned by Nucor and US Steel anyway. The mini-mills around the Great Lakes are often buying US power anyway. It makes no sense unless you wanted to really piss off your closest ally, and say to the world "hey, having a free trade agreement with us means nothing".

    But if your goal was to generate a headline where you can pose as defending the American steel industry and be attacked by people like the NyTimes?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    Scott_P said:

    Morning all

    I see there was some discussion on the previous thread about BBC Brexit bias...

    The BBC keep putting Farge on because it makes them feel good about themselves. They think they are being clever, pointing to the Bogey-man of Brexit. "See, HE is why we are so happy to take the moral high-ground on Brexit."

    Farage reinforces their anti-Brexitness. But many of us voted to Leave in spite of Farage, not because of him. He is a publicity whore who is guaanteed to answer the Beebs phone calls. The people you would REALLY want on Question Time - say Boris or Gove - just think "Why should I bother? I know they just want my political assassination. Fuck 'em."
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,885
    edited March 4
    We all know why the '950 voters' point is nonsense, and the lack of good grammar is shocking, but nevertheless the lead makes some very good points. The Tories who seem to think that Project Fear, the remake, will be enough are deluding themselves.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm sorry to bang on about this, but the Trump steel and aluminium tariffs are bizarre.

    If the plan was to protect the US steel industry from subsidised steel, he could have introduced targeted tariffs, focusing on places where steel has significant government support (like... errrr... China).

    If he wanted general protection, he could have updated the US tariff schedule so that tariffs for non-FTA countries (like China and the EU) were higher.

    Those would have been perfectly sensible, legitimate ways to achieve his goal. (If his goal was protection of the US steel industry.)

    Instead he announced an across the board 25% tariff for steel, including for partners (like Canada) with whom the US had an FTA. Why? It's certainly in breach of the terms of NAFTA. The Canadian steel industry is essentially all owned by Nucor and US Steel anyway. The mini-mills around the Great Lakes are often buying US power anyway. It makes no sense unless you wanted to really piss off your closest ally, and say to the world "hey, having a free trade agreement with us means nothing".

    But if your goal was to generate a headline where you can pose as defending the American steel industry and be attacked by people like the NyTimes?
    Which, sadly, is pretty much exactly how Trump thinks.

    Oh, and it’s “The Failing New York Times”.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,885
    edited March 4
    Sandpit said:

    Somewhat surprised to open my local rag here in the sandpit, to see a comment piece from Lynton Crosby on the differences between the East and West when it comes to politics and media. A good read.
    https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/in-the-pessimistic-west-an-aura-of-negativity-feeds-into-a-growing-political-divide-1.709389

    Thanks for the link. He is, predictably, fixated on the personal and presentational issues and doesn't spend much time looking at the fundamental reasons why many in the West are dissatisfied with the current economic settlement. His closing comments that these need fixing undermine his argument that the pessimism is largely down to presentation and leadership style.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 843
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm sorry to bang on about this, but the Trump steel and aluminium tariffs are bizarre.

    If the plan was to protect the US steel industry from subsidised steel, he could have introduced targeted tariffs, focusing on places where steel has significant government support (like... errrr... China).

    If he wanted general protection, he could have updated the US tariff schedule so that tariffs for non-FTA countries (like China and the EU) were higher.

    Those would have been perfectly sensible, legitimate ways to achieve his goal. (If his goal was protection of the US steel industry.)

    His voters probably love it. I've seen articles describing him as vain, and articles describing him as every other thing under the sun but this one rings true more than most. He loves the power and adulation and it is easier to sell simple ideas, not just soundbites, because I guess even America is bored of them to an extent, but policies that are soundbite length. Your suggestions are far too nuanced, long and boring*.

    The other aspect is he has been a powerful bully for sometime in his life before the Whitehouse and it worked. Now he can be the worlds most powerful bully as president and maybe in some ways his bullying has had results. Maybe the idea is to bluster threaten even start the trade war in some small way and then demand concessions.

    My last thought is the more the liberals, or anyone not Trump screams and shouts about his actions the more the base lap it up, so in some ways the crazier the better for Trump.

    *I'm personally interested, but not so much Trump and I feel a lot of his voters.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    Thinking more about the tariffs, I've decided there are two possible explanations for why he did the tariffs the way he did:

    1. Cock up. It's a tweet that he's forced to make policy of.
    2. Conspiracy. He wants to make it perfectly clear that he doesn't think the US is (or should be) bound by historic treaty commitments*.

    I genuinely don't know which one it is. I'm tempted by 1, but fear the answer is more likely 2.

    * Of course, if it's 2, then it's a bit rich that he's also complaining that Germany isn't spending 2% of GDP on defence.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm sorry to bang on about this, but the Trump steel and aluminium tariffs are bizarre.

    If the plan was to protect the US steel industry from subsidised steel, he could have introduced targeted tariffs, focusing on places where steel has significant government support (like... errrr... China).

    If he wanted general protection, he could have updated the US tariff schedule so that tariffs for non-FTA countries (like China and the EU) were higher.

    Those would have been perfectly sensible, legitimate ways to achieve his goal. (If his goal was protection of the US steel industry.)

    His voters probably love it. I've seen articles describing him as vain, and articles describing him as every other thing under the sun but this one rings true more than most. He loves the power and adulation and it is easier to sell simple ideas, not just soundbites, because I guess even America is bored of them to an extent, but policies that are soundbite length. Your suggestions are far too nuanced, long and boring*.

    The other aspect is he has been a powerful bully for sometime in his life before the Whitehouse and it worked. Now he can be the worlds most powerful bully as president and maybe in some ways his bullying has had results. Maybe the idea is to bluster threaten even start the trade war in some small way and then demand concessions.

    My last thought is the more the liberals, or anyone not Trump screams and shouts about his actions the more the base lap it up, so in some ways the crazier the better for Trump.

    *I'm personally interested, but not so much Trump and I feel a lot of his voters.
    I think the headline is the same regardless:

    "Donald Trump has announced tariffs of 25% on imported steel" - and of course "our very good allies, who we have an agreement with, Canada, who buy a lot of our electricity and oil to make their steel with, are not included". Indeed, he wouldn't even need to add the second part. It goes without saying.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 4
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Somewhat surprised to open my local rag here in the sandpit, to see a comment piece from Lynton Crosby on the differences between the East and West when it comes to politics and media. A good read.
    https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/in-the-pessimistic-west-an-aura-of-negativity-feeds-into-a-growing-political-divide-1.709389

    Thanks for the link. He is, predictably, fixated on the personal and presentational issues and doesn't spend much time looking at the fundamental reasons why many in the West are dissatisfied with the current economic settlement. His closing comments that these need fixing undermine his argument that the pessimism is largely down to presentation and leadership style.
    That’s a very good critique of the article. I still don’t think he understands where the Brexit vote came from. He thought that the Hannans and Carswells were a minority in the party - which is true - but he was taken completely by surprise by the effect of Farage and the number of previous non-voters who turned out on the day.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974



    "once the Brexit stuff goes a little quieter"

    I see the problem. ;)

    Brexit won't go away but unless something goes really bad with Brexit, which would probably benefit Labour anyway, my assumption would be that Brexit would be at most as much of an issue as it was at this election but more likely less of an issue. My other thought, although it is just a hunch, is that the losers of the referendum, remain voters, are probably more likely to hold onto stronger views over a longer time regarding Brexit than the winners.

    All assuming we don't get a soft Brexit which could throw up a different sort of considerations.
    It's not so much a case of Brexit as an issue for the voters, in itself. It's the effect Brexit is having on the government (where it is consuming good governance), and in the way it highlights internal splits within the Conservative Party - splits that, in many cases, exist only over this one issue.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Somewhat surprised to open my local rag here in the sandpit, to see a comment piece from Lynton Crosby on the differences between the East and West when it comes to politics and media. A good read.
    https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/in-the-pessimistic-west-an-aura-of-negativity-feeds-into-a-growing-political-divide-1.709389

    Thanks for the link. He is, predictably, fixated on the personal and presentational issues and doesn't spend much time looking at the fundamental reasons why many in the West are dissatisfied with the current economic settlement. His closing comments that these need fixing undermine his argument that the pessimism is largely down to presentation and leadership style.
    That’s a very good critique of the article. I still don’t think he understands where the Brexit vote came from. He thought that the Hannans and Carswells were a minority in the party - which is true - but he was taken completely by surprise by the effect of Farage and the number of previous non-voters who turned out on the day.
    The article is shallow and says nothing that hasn't been said - better - by posters on this board.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    edited March 4
    The voters are remarkably finely tuned at delivering just the right result.

    Feb 1974 - "Who governs Britain?" Not you, Ted.

    Oct 1974 - OK, Harold, have your majority. Just. Cuz we still don't really trust you.

    1979 - See, unburied dead, crisis, what crisis? - we were wise to clip Labour's wings. Let the Lady have a go.

    1983 - and another

    1987 - and yet another

    1992 - yeah, she'd definitely outworn her welcome. But Kinnock? "Alriiiiiiiiigghhhht!" - not

    1997 - Now THAT's what I call a refreshing face! Luv yer, Tony!

    2001 - still luv yer Tony.

    2005 - er, it's not exactly love, Tony. You were lucky you were facing Michael Howard, and not some fresh faced Tory with better ideas.

    2010 - yeah like that - Cameron. But even so, still don't entirely trust him. Give that nice Mister Clegg a role.

    2015 - ....what shits the LibDems are. Have a majority Dave.

    2017 - PM Corbyn? Hur hur hur....but admit it, we scared you, Theresa!

    2022 - Labour discovers the electroate is like a cat toying with a mouse.....
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,663
    The appeal of Corbyn is exactly the same as the appeal of Trump: he appears angry on behalf of the lower socio-economic groups. May and any of her oft speculated successors seem irritated/revolted/bored with them.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Somewhat surprised to open my local rag here in the sandpit, to see a comment piece from Lynton Crosby on the differences between the East and West when it comes to politics and media. A good read.
    https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/in-the-pessimistic-west-an-aura-of-negativity-feeds-into-a-growing-political-divide-1.709389

    Thanks for the link. He is, predictably, fixated on the personal and presentational issues and doesn't spend much time looking at the fundamental reasons why many in the West are dissatisfied with the current economic settlement. His closing comments that these need fixing undermine his argument that the pessimism is largely down to presentation and leadership style.
    That’s a very good critique of the article. I still don’t think he understands where the Brexit vote came from. He thought that the Hannans and Carswells were a minority in the party - which is true - but he was taken completely by surprise by the effect of Farage and the number of previous non-voters who turned out on the day.
    The article is shallow and says nothing that hasn't been said - better - by posters on this board.
    Yes, but it’s for an international audience who won’t understand the nuances of British politics. Turns out that Cameron and Crosby were at a conference in Abu Dhabi yesterday.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Three men charged with arson and manslaughter over Leicester shop fire last week.

    Aram Kurd, 33, of Leicester, Hawkar Hassan, 32, of Coventry and Arkan Ali, 37, of Oldham, have all been charged with five counts of manslaughter and with arson with intent to endanger life.

    They will be held in custody during the weekend and will appear before Leicester Magistrates on Monday.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5458311/Three-charged-Leicester-explosion.html
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349

    The voters are remarkably finely tuned at delivering just the right result.

    Feb 1974 - "Who governs Britain?" Not you, Ted.

    Oct 1974 - OK, Harold, have your majority. Just. Cuz we still don't really trust you.

    1979 - See, unburied dead, crisis, what crisis? - we were wise to clip Labour's wings. Let the Lady have a go.

    1983 - and another

    1987 - and yet another

    1992 - yeah, she'd definitely outworn her welcome. But Kinnock? "Alriiiiiiiiigghhhht!" - not

    1997 - Now THAT's what I call a refreshing face! Luv yer, Tony!

    2001 - still luv yer Tony.

    2005 - er, it's not exactly love, Tony. You were lucky you were facing Michael Howard, and not some fresh faced Tory with better ideas.

    2010 - yeah like that - Cameron. But even so, still don't entirely trust him. Give that nice Mister Clegg a role.

    2015 - ....what shits the LibDems are. Have a majority Dave.

    2017 - PM Corbyn? Hur hur hur....but admit it, we scared you, Theresa!

    2022 - Labour discovers the electroate is like a cat toying with a mouse.....

    2022 - Labour discovers the electorate is like a cat toying with a mouse..... and in true Tom and Jerry mode the Labour underdog (woof woof) is made the cats whiskers by a purring public ....

    Titter .... :smile:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    JackW said:

    The voters are remarkably finely tuned at delivering just the right result.

    Feb 1974 - "Who governs Britain?" Not you, Ted.

    Oct 1974 - OK, Harold, have your majority. Just. Cuz we still don't really trust you.

    1979 - See, unburied dead, crisis, what crisis? - we were wise to clip Labour's wings. Let the Lady have a go.

    1983 - and another

    1987 - and yet another

    1992 - yeah, she'd definitely outworn her welcome. But Kinnock? "Alriiiiiiiiigghhhht!" - not

    1997 - Now THAT's what I call a refreshing face! Luv yer, Tony!

    2001 - still luv yer Tony.

    2005 - er, it's not exactly love, Tony. You were lucky you were facing Michael Howard, and not some fresh faced Tory with better ideas.

    2010 - yeah like that - Cameron. But even so, still don't entirely trust him. Give that nice Mister Clegg a role.

    2015 - ....what shits the LibDems are. Have a majority Dave.

    2017 - PM Corbyn? Hur hur hur....but admit it, we scared you, Theresa!

    2022 - Labour discovers the electroate is like a cat toying with a mouse.....

    2022 - Labour discovers the electorate is like a cat toying with a mouse..... and in true Tom and Jerry mode the Labour underdog (woof woof) is made the cats whiskers by a purring public ....

    Titter .... :smile:
    Is that your ARSE opining?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Good morning, everyone.

    He campaigned very effectively last time. However, we must also acknowledge he was aided by the worst Conservative campaign in living memory, and the media asking tough questions like "Will you keep your allotment?" rather than "How will you raise countless hundreds of billions to nationalise everything?".

    F1 testing resumes in two days. Until then, we have to make do with the Italian and German results today (election and SDP referendum respectively).
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 124
    Corbyns appeal is primarily to that part of the educated left who dislike Britain who Orwell once identified and since his day has been enlarged by ethnic immigrants and pop culture.However good a campaigner he is still vulnerable to a smart Tory campaign that appeals to the `patriotic vote`
    One never knows quite how good or not someone will be as a party leader in an election until after the event but Estey Mcvey as a former TV presenter has scope as does Johnnie Mercer`
    Ruth Davidson may be over hyped.No guarantee she would appeal to middle England.She might put them off
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    edited March 4



    Blair managed to sell a vision for the country that got him into power. He managed to maintain that vision for over five years before the fraud started to be uncovered. It is possible.

    The thing is, it's very rare that visions are entirely divorced from reality, just as it's very rare that they are implemented wholesale. Blair did shorten NHS waiting times, introduce the minimum wage and implemented social reforms, just as Thatcher enabled people to buy council houses and took on unions which floating voters felt had got too powerful. There are lots of ways people felt a bit disappointed, but on the whole they felt they approved of the general direction.

    Lots of people like Corbyn's general vision, as you say, but without illusions that it'll all be perfect - they just feel that it's time Britain paid a bit more attention to struggling ordinary people. They would, I think, be willing to give a fair hearing to a Tory direction too. But there really isn't one, except Brexit, Brexit, Brexit, plus the occasional speech on something else that doesn't lead to anything specific. Quite apart from Corbyn, the Tories don't seem to realise that the next election will probably be fought after Brexit.

    They're intellectually exhausted and need a period in opposition to sort themselves out in one direction or another. We were just the same in 2010.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349

    JackW said:

    The voters are remarkably finely tuned at delivering just the right result.

    Feb 1974 - "Who governs Britain?" Not you, Ted.

    Oct 1974 - OK, Harold, have your majority. Just. Cuz we still don't really trust you.

    1979 - See, unburied dead, crisis, what crisis? - we were wise to clip Labour's wings. Let the Lady have a go.

    1983 - and another

    1987 - and yet another

    1992 - yeah, she'd definitely outworn her welcome. But Kinnock? "Alriiiiiiiiigghhhht!" - not

    1997 - Now THAT's what I call a refreshing face! Luv yer, Tony!

    2001 - still luv yer Tony.

    2005 - er, it's not exactly love, Tony. You were lucky you were facing Michael Howard, and not some fresh faced Tory with better ideas.

    2010 - yeah like that - Cameron. But even so, still don't entirely trust him. Give that nice Mister Clegg a role.

    2015 - ....what shits the LibDems are. Have a majority Dave.

    2017 - PM Corbyn? Hur hur hur....but admit it, we scared you, Theresa!

    2022 - Labour discovers the electroate is like a cat toying with a mouse.....

    2022 - Labour discovers the electorate is like a cat toying with a mouse..... and in true Tom and Jerry mode the Labour underdog (woof woof) is made the cats whiskers by a purring public ....

    Titter .... :smile:
    Is that your ARSE opining?
    My ARSE is enjoying retirement and is in recumbent mode taking in the balmy weather in deepest rural Hertfordshire.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    TSE is suggesting that Corbyn has abolished polling boom and bust ?

    Sounds familiar.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    ydoethur said:

    OchEye said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Thank goodness I'm in the US.

    Here we have leaders like... oh, wait...

    You reckon Trump will start a trade war?
    I suspect he’s bluffing.
    I've been trying to follow what is going on in the Whitehouse from US news sources, and to be honest, it is difficult for even the most experienced Westwing watcher to even guess what is going to happen next. But one thing that is becoming clear is that while POTUS close staff and family bail out, fired, leave somehow, there are fewer and fewer people who can tell him "No!". Replacements are virtually non existent. Then the leavers are all being approached by Mueller and the FBI to spill their guts in return for shorter prison terms. Even close family are not immune. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that the Donald is becoming completely paranoid. Is he bluffing? There is no one around him to divert attention away from his ramblings and cool down his rhetoric. Probably the best predictor is in the script of Shakespeare's "Lear"
    You think Ivanka is going to be executed and Trump will die holding her corpse in his arms?

    I don't think things are going to get quite so bad as that (although I suppose with Trump you can never tell).

    A withdrawal from the 2020 race before the primary season would be my guess.
    Doubt it - unless the Mueller probe finally hits the target, or his system finally collapses under the daily burger assault...
    Trump just started another large fundraising drive for 2020, and campaign staff are being appointed. He might not much enjoy being president, but he loves campaigning.

    I was a bit puzzzled by the Lear comparison - it's not as though the entire Shakespearean family were a bunch of grifters.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,250
    The ComRes/Sunday Mirror poll mentioned on the previous thread said that if a second referendum were held again, Leave would be 3 points ahead. Nearly two years after the first, opinion is not changing.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    OchEye said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Thank goodness I'm in the US.

    Here we have leaders like... oh, wait...

    You reckon Trump will start a trade war?
    I suspect he’s bluffing.
    I've been trying to follow what is going on in the Whitehouse from US news sources, and to be honest, it is difficult for even the most experienced Westwing watcher to even guess what is going to happen next. But one thing that is becoming clear is that while POTUS close staff and family bail out, fired, leave somehow, there are fewer and fewer people who can tell him "No!". Replacements are virtually non existent. Then the leavers are all being approached by Mueller and the FBI to spill their guts in return for shorter prison terms. Even close family are not immune. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that the Donald is becoming completely paranoid. Is he bluffing? There is no one around him to divert attention away from his ramblings and cool down his rhetoric. Probably the best predictor is in the script of Shakespeare's "Lear"
    You think Ivanka is going to be executed and Trump will die holding her corpse in his arms?

    I don't think things are going to get quite so bad as that (although I suppose with Trump you can never tell).

    A withdrawal from the 2020 race before the primary season would be my guess.
    Doubt it - unless the Mueller probe finally hits the target, or his system finally collapses under the daily burger assault...
    Trump just started another large fundraising drive for 2020, and campaign staff are being appointed. He might not much enjoy being president, but he loves campaigning.

    I was a bit puzzzled by the Lear comparison - it's not as though the entire Shakespearean family were a bunch of grifters.
    Perhaps we should compare him instead to Richard II? But who then will be Henry IV?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    rcs1000 said:

    Thinking more about the tariffs, I've decided there are two possible explanations for why he did the tariffs the way he did:

    1. Cock up. It's a tweet that he's forced to make policy of.
    2. Conspiracy. He wants to make it perfectly clear that he doesn't think the US is (or should be) bound by historic treaty commitments*.

    I genuinely don't know which one it is. I'm tempted by 1, but fear the answer is more likely 2.

    * Of course, if it's 2, then it's a bit rich that he's also complaining that Germany isn't spending 2% of GDP on defence.

    1 & 2, I suspect.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    Sandpit said:

    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
    Surely our own senior Civil Servants are political appointments rather than being elected?

    As indeed is true of Quangos and the NHS.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197
    Good old Hestletine telling it like it is.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    It doesn't make it harder to get hits on Corbyn. Just choose the truthful ones. There a lot out there for him and Mcdonnell
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267
    Metatron said:

    Corbyns appeal is primarily to that part of the educated left who dislike Britain who Orwell once identified and since his day has been enlarged by ethnic immigrants and pop culture.However good a campaigner he is still vulnerable to a smart Tory campaign that appeals to the `patriotic vote`
    One never knows quite how good or not someone will be as a party leader in an election until after the event but Estey Mcvey as a former TV presenter has scope as does Johnnie Mercer`
    Ruth Davidson may be over hyped.No guarantee she would appeal to middle England.She might put them off

    As a ‘lefty’ I really, really take offence at the suggestion that I am in some way ‘unpatriotic’ because I’m on the left.

    I’m proud of our history...... well sone of it ...... and I delight in our countryside, and some at least of our traditions.

    And I’m always there for at least one of the British teams in sporting encounters.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    King Cole, I might well have reacted that way had I been on the left, but to be precise Mr. Metatron didn't slam the left. He attacked part of the educated left and, frankly, I think that's a fair point. Corbyn can be accused of many things. Excessive patriotism certainly isn't one of them.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197
    Tories are completely blindsided by Corbyn’s past. The electorate don't care. 40 percent voted Labour . If they could only forget about it for a minute they might stand a chance of dealing with him effectively.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
    Surely our own senior Civil Servants are political appointments rather than being elected?

    As indeed is true of Quangos and the NHS.
    Not at all, there’s a clear delineation between the permanent staff and the political appointees. The former are public administrators and don’t ever speak, and are promoted from within their own service.

    Mr Selmayr has just been appointed to head the permanent staff from a politically appointed position as Junker’s Chief of Staff.

    Imagine if Lynton Crosby had been appointed to replace Gus O’Donnell, that’s why there’s an outcry over this appointment.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Just on the German result, bit irked as I was contemplating backing Yes (which was as high as 1.4 initially) to hedge a bit my Merkel bet. I'm not down, but I would've been green had she not been 'next' Chancellor. Ah well.

    Not as bad as my decision not to hedge a Con majority of 50-75 seats, though.
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 132
    Pieces like this make me feel that it is all rather in the price for Corbyn.
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 132
    TGOHF said:

    TSE is suggesting that Corbyn has abolished polling boom and bust ?

    Sounds familiar.

    Quite. Put better than I could.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    edited March 4
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
    Surely our own senior Civil Servants are political appointments rather than being elected?

    As indeed is true of Quangos and the NHS.
    Not at all, there’s a clear delineation between the permanent staff and the political appointees. The former are public administrators and don’t ever speak, and are promoted from within their own service.

    Mr Selmayr has just been appointed to head the permanent staff from a politically appointed position as Junker’s Chief of Staff.

    Imagine if Lynton Crosby had been appointed to replace Gus O’Donnell, that’s why there’s an outcry over this appointment.
    And still remains, de facto, Juncker's chief of staff.
    I am (slightly) surprised that this affair hasn't been better reported - but there again our reporting of European news has been consistently poor.

    (Edit - search 'selmayrgate' for U.K. links, and see just how few you get (basically Politico)).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729
    edited March 4
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
    Surely our own senior Civil Servants are political appointments rather than being elected?

    As indeed is true of Quangos and the NHS.
    Not at all, there’s a clear delineation between the permanent staff and the political appointees. The former are public administrators and don’t ever speak, and are promoted from within their own service.

    Mr Selmayr has just been appointed to head the permanent staff from a politically appointed position as Junker’s Chief of Staff.

    Imagine if Lynton Crosby had been appointed to replace Gus O’Donnell, that’s why there’s an outcry over this appointment.
    Is it any different from David Cameron’s former Chief of Staff being appointed Her Majesty’s Most Excellent Ambassador Extraordinaire and Plenipotentiary to France ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. B, I've read a little on Twitter that some in the EU are less than thrilled with the appointment.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    OchEye said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Thank goodness I'm in the US.

    Here we have leaders like... oh, wait...

    You reckon Trump will start a trade war?
    I suspect he’s bluffing.
    I've been trying to follow what is going on in the Whitehouse from US news sources, and to be honest, it is difficult for even the most experienced Westwing watcher to even guess what is going to happen next. But one thing that is becoming clear is that while POTUS close staff and family bail out, fired, leave somehow, there are fewer and fewer people who can tell him "No!". Replacements are virtually non existent. Then the leavers are all being approached by Mueller and the FBI to spill their guts in return for shorter prison terms. Even close family are not immune. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that the Donald is becoming completely paranoid. Is he bluffing? There is no one around him to divert attention away from his ramblings and cool down his rhetoric. Probably the best predictor is in the script of Shakespeare's "Lear"
    You think Ivanka is going to be executed and Trump will die holding her corpse in his arms?

    I don't think things are going to get quite so bad as that (although I suppose with Trump you can never tell).

    A withdrawal from the 2020 race before the primary season would be my guess.
    Doubt it - unless the Mueller probe finally hits the target, or his system finally collapses under the daily burger assault...
    Trump just started another large fundraising drive for 2020, and campaign staff are being appointed. He might not much enjoy being president, but he loves campaigning.

    I was a bit puzzzled by the Lear comparison - it's not as though the entire Shakespearean family were a bunch of grifters.
    Perhaps we should compare him instead to Richard II? But who then will be Henry IV?
    A bit lacking in the poetry stakes, surely ?
    The tone is more Ubu Roi.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43275611

    "Nimby councils" in England that fail to build enough new homes could be stripped of planning powers, Housing Secretary Sajid Javid has warned.

    Mr Javid told the Sunday Times he would be "breathing down" the necks of local authorities to ensure targets are met.


    I do hope Mr Javid hasn't been opposing developments in his own backyard.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
    Surely our own senior Civil Servants are political appointments rather than being elected?

    As indeed is true of Quangos and the NHS.
    Not at all, there’s a clear delineation between the permanent staff and the political appointees. The former are public administrators and don’t ever speak, and are promoted from within their own service.

    Mr Selmayr has just been appointed to head the permanent staff from a politically appointed position as Junker’s Chief of Staff.

    Imagine if Lynton Crosby had been appointed to replace Gus O’Donnell, that’s why there’s an outcry over this appointment.
    Is it any different from David Cameron’s former Chief of Staff being appointed Her Majesty’s Most Excellent Ambassador Extraordinaire and Plenipotentiary to France ?
    Yes. It isn’t a comparable position - Head of the Civil Service would be. Do you think that would pass unremarked?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    Jonathan said:

    Tories are completely blindsided by Corbyn’s past. The electorate don't care. 40 percent voted Labour . If they could only forget about it for a minute they might stand a chance of dealing with him effectively.

    Correct.
    (It's not as though his past is going away - or indeed that the press will forget about it.)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Jeremy Corbyn is good at campaigning to leftwingers and rallying the left, hence he won the 2015 and 2016 Labour leadership elections and at the 2017 general election was able to get LD, SNP, Green and even some old Labour former UKIP voters to vote Labour and get Labour to 40% of the vote, its highest total since 2001.

    Corbyn is less good at converting Tories to Labour, hence the Tories got 42% at the general election, their highest total since 1983 and are still consistently polling 40% or above
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
    Surely our own senior Civil Servants are political appointments rather than being elected?

    As indeed is true of Quangos and the NHS.
    But we at least have the power to elect MP to do something about it - if we so choose. In the EU? Not a chance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    tlg86 said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43275611

    "Nimby councils" in England that fail to build enough new homes could be stripped of planning powers, Housing Secretary Sajid Javid has warned.

    Mr Javid told the Sunday Times he would be "breathing down" the necks of local authorities to ensure targets are met.


    I do hope Mr Javid hasn't been opposing developments in his own backyard.

    He won’t be the first minister to threaten local authorities with serious planning reform if they don’t start building. Housing is the biggest single domestic policy issue at the moment.

    I find it somewhat ironic that those who support the highest levels of immigration also support the lowest levels of housebuilding in their own backyard - yet are simultaneously mad at the government that their offspring can’t afford to buy in Zone 2 before they turn 25.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tories are completely blindsided by Corbyn’s past. The electorate don't care. 40 percent voted Labour . If they could only forget about it for a minute they might stand a chance of dealing with him effectively.

    Correct.
    (It's not as though his past is going away - or indeed that the press will forget about it.)
    Yes, we should let the press do they’re going to do with Corbyn. Those politically opposing him need to keep asking where the £200bn in tax rises are coming from to fund his spending plans.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,729

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    THAT is exactly why I voted to leave.

    Completely unaccountable, unelected, and the first item on their agenda is feathering their own nests and those around them. How does a political appointee ever end up running the permanent staff with so little process followed?
    Surely our own senior Civil Servants are political appointments rather than being elected?

    As indeed is true of Quangos and the NHS.
    Not at all, there’s a clear delineation between the permanent staff and the political appointees. The former are public administrators and don’t ever speak, and are promoted from within their own service.

    Mr Selmayr has just been appointed to head the permanent staff from a politically appointed position as Junker’s Chief of Staff.

    Imagine if Lynton Crosby had been appointed to replace Gus O’Donnell, that’s why there’s an outcry over this appointment.
    Is it any different from David Cameron’s former Chief of Staff being appointed Her Majesty’s Most Excellent Ambassador Extraordinaire and Plenipotentiary to France ?
    Yes. It isn’t a comparable position - Head of the Civil Service would be. Do you think that would pass unremarked?
    Fair point.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,751
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm sorry to bang on about this, but the Trump steel and aluminium tariffs are bizarre.

    If the plan was to protect the US steel industry from subsidised steel, he could have introduced targeted tariffs, focusing on places where steel has significant government support (like... errrr... China).

    If he wanted general protection, he could have updated the US tariff schedule so that tariffs for non-FTA countries (like China and the EU) were higher.

    Those would have been perfectly sensible, legitimate ways to achieve his goal. (If his goal was protection of the US steel industry.)

    Instead he announced an across the board 25% tariff for steel, including for partners (like Canada) with whom the US had an FTA. Why? It's certainly in breach of the terms of NAFTA. The Canadian steel industry is essentially all owned by Nucor and US Steel anyway. The mini-mills around the Great Lakes are often buying US power anyway. It makes no sense unless you wanted to really piss off your closest ally, and say to the world "hey, having a free trade agreement with us means nothing".

    I suspect it's just sabre rattling, it fits the Trump MO. Announce something heinous and carmtch everyone's attention, implement something that was the original intention and much less onerous.

    My guess is that Trump wants to "fix" the US/China balance of trade and the only way to do so 8s to single out China, going against WTO rules on tariffs. This way when he moves to do that the nation's who have been "reprieved" won't say anything when the hammer still falls on China.

    I also think he's likely to target the EU at some level, maybe even Germany specifically. My guess is this is all based on the numbers. China and Germany are without a doubt the worst offenders in a free trade system, in their own ways.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm sorry to bang on about this, but the Trump steel and aluminium tariffs are bizarre.

    If the plan was to protect the US steel industry from subsidised steel, he could have introduced targeted tariffs, focusing on places where steel has significant government support (like... errrr... China).

    If he wanted general protection, he could have updated the US tariff schedule so that tariffs for non-FTA countries (like China and the EU) were higher.

    Those would have been perfectly sensible, legitimate ways to achieve his goal. (If his goal was protection of the US steel industry.)

    Instead he announced an across the board 25% tariff for steel, including for partners (like Canada) with whom the US had an FTA. Why? It's certainly in breach of the terms of NAFTA. The Canadian steel industry is essentially all owned by Nucor and US Steel anyway. The mini-mills around the Great Lakes are often buying US power anyway. It makes no sense unless you wanted to really piss off your closest ally, and say to the world "hey, having a free trade agreement with us means nothing".

    But if your goal was to generate a headline where you can pose as defending the American steel industry and be attacked by people like the NyTimes?
    Which, sadly, is pretty much exactly how Trump thinks.

    Oh, and it’s “The Failing New York Times”.
    Exactly.

    More so than with any politician I think you have to almost completely ignore what he says and look at what he does.

    His business career is littered with threatening law suits - but he doesn’t follow through.
    Saying he will give money to charity - but he doesn’t do it.

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,907

    Metatron said:

    Corbyns appeal is primarily to that part of the educated left who dislike Britain who Orwell once identified and since his day has been enlarged by ethnic immigrants and pop culture.However good a campaigner he is still vulnerable to a smart Tory campaign that appeals to the `patriotic vote`
    One never knows quite how good or not someone will be as a party leader in an election until after the event but Estey Mcvey as a former TV presenter has scope as does Johnnie Mercer`
    Ruth Davidson may be over hyped.No guarantee she would appeal to middle England.She might put them off

    As a ‘lefty’ I really, really take offence at the suggestion that I am in some way ‘unpatriotic’ because I’m on the left.

    I’m proud of our history...... well sone of it ...... and I delight in our countryside, and some at least of our traditions.

    And I’m always there for at least one of the British teams in sporting encounters.
    I always regard left wingers as the true patriots.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    Jonathan said:

    Tories are completely blindsided by Corbyn’s past. The electorate don't care. 40 percent voted Labour . If they could only forget about it for a minute they might stand a chance of dealing with him effectively.

    That’s not quite right. A large part of the electorate clearly does care a lot. But the part that doesn’t might be big enough to get Labour into power.

    The Conservatives need to show how Jeremy Corbyn’s past is a problem for policy in the present for those not so far convinced.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,907
    The best argument against Adonis would be to make Brexit a success. Not much sign of that at the moment.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197

    Jonathan said:

    Tories are completely blindsided by Corbyn’s past. The electorate don't care. 40 percent voted Labour . If they could only forget about it for a minute they might stand a chance of dealing with him effectively.

    That’s not quite right. A large part of the electorate clearly does care a lot. But the part that doesn’t might be big enough to get Labour into power.

    The Conservatives need to show how Jeremy Corbyn’s past is a problem for policy in the present for those not so far convinced.
    They would do a lot better if they forgot about it entirely .
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,208
    edited March 4
    Jonathan said:

    Good old Hestletine telling it like it is.

    He said "Some Tories would rather see Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister than accept May's version of Brexit"

    It looks like he's going to get both. Anyone with investments in the UK should sell now.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/some-tories-would-rather-jeremy-corbyn-was-prime-minister-than-see-brexit-happen-claims-lord-heseltine_uk_5a9914d5e4b089ec35390227

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329
    tlg86 said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43275611

    "Nimby councils" in England that fail to build enough new homes could be stripped of planning powers, Housing Secretary Sajid Javid has warned.

    Mr Javid told the Sunday Times he would be "breathing down" the necks of local authorities to ensure targets are met.


    I do hope Mr Javid hasn't been opposing developments in his own backyard.

    https://www.showhouse.co.uk/news/sajid-javid-blocks-nearly-2400-new-homes-in-tory-constituencies/
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,751

    Jonathan said:

    Tories are completely blindsided by Corbyn’s past. The electorate don't care. 40 percent voted Labour . If they could only forget about it for a minute they might stand a chance of dealing with him effectively.

    That’s not quite right. A large part of the electorate clearly does care a lot. But the part that doesn’t might be big enough to get Labour into power.

    The Conservatives need to show how Jeremy Corbyn’s past is a problem for policy in the present for those not so far convinced.
    No, the Tories already have the votes of people who care about Jez's chequered history. We need to concentrate on what PM Corbyn means for the future. Jobs, the economy and personal taxation. Force him to try and make the numbers add up. Show that his "I'm a reasonable man of the people" thing will result in a 50% higher rate and a 75% additional rate, or a job destroying 40% corporate rate etc...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    The best argument against Adonis would be to make Brexit a success. Not much sign of that at the moment.
    What the EU are absolutely shit-scared of happening, is that Brexit is a success. It would completely destroy their project. It’s why they’re so keen on stopping us making trade deals and allowing regulatory divergence.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466

    Metatron said:

    Corbyns appeal is primarily to that part of the educated left who dislike Britain who Orwell once identified and since his day has been enlarged by ethnic immigrants and pop culture.However good a campaigner he is still vulnerable to a smart Tory campaign that appeals to the `patriotic vote`
    One never knows quite how good or not someone will be as a party leader in an election until after the event but Estey Mcvey as a former TV presenter has scope as does Johnnie Mercer`
    Ruth Davidson may be over hyped.No guarantee she would appeal to middle England.She might put them off

    As a ‘lefty’ I really, really take offence at the suggestion that I am in some way ‘unpatriotic’ because I’m on the left.

    I’m proud of our history...... well sone of it ...... and I delight in our countryside, and some at least of our traditions.

    And I’m always there for at least one of the British teams in sporting encounters.
    I'm closer to Metatron's caricature - I don't care if we win ANY Olympic medals, I feel broadly neutral when I hear the National Anthem. But I don't dislike Britain either, it feels like home, and of course I hope we're happy and successful (but I hope the same for anywhere else).

    In general it's a mistake to to generalise about people who don't currently vote for you - it's like Remainers caricaturing Leavers as being thick. Metatron's core vote - ostentatiously patriotic, wary of pop culure and immigrants, dubious even about Tories who are gay - is already solidly Tory. In order to win an election, the Tories need to keep a channel of communication with the rest of us.
This discussion has been closed.