politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: Silly season. What conspirac

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: Silly season. What conspiracy theories do Brits believe? Plus Boris makes tea and “wreath-gate”

On this week’s PB / Polling Matters show Keiran Pedley and Leo Barasi take a different approach to the podcast and look at public opinion on conspiracy theories using some exclusive polling from Opinium.

Read the full story here

Mortimer

First!

RobD

Second

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know you'll all be shocked to know that Chris Grayling shows another sector he is as useful as a marzipan dildo

Road haulage firms have accused Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, of failing to put in place any credible contingency plans for a 'no-deal' Brexit scenario, as well as "knowing nothing" about their industry.

Speaking to the Telegraph, industry leaders said they were left astonished in recent meetings with Mr Grayling where he appeared to be unaware that British lorry drivers would not be able to carry goods on the continent if the UK crashes out of the bloc.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

A couple of vertically challenged planks beat Chris Grayling in an IQ test this week.

That's an odd phrase - if it's 'as thick as' why does it need short planks? One imagines that long planks are equally as thick.

If though the matter is about length then even a short plank is pretty 'deep', and of course there's no merit in having two, unless you lay them end-to end.

Most sayings don't make any sense when you think them through. Like what's the point of having a cake if you don't intend to eat it.

A lot of that is because either the sayings or the language have evolved separately thus divorcing the literal phrase from what we understand it. Eg for cakes the original expression was that "you can't eat your cake and (still) have it" ... that actually makes sense unlike the modern expression. Not sure the etymology of the 2 short planks expression.

It is curious how an expression could change from making sense to not making sense, not even from some evolution of culture or language which makes it no longer understandable, but just because the word order has been mixed up over time. Says something about the limitations of logical development of anything relating to humanity perhaps!

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1029829353365037059

And I wonder who released that little nugget? And why?

The pieces are moving on the chess board.

It's tricky - anyone who wants the job needs to be making an impression now since while we don't know when a contest will come, there is a chance it is very soon, but so long as they are not rebelling they cannot be too obvious.

I wonder what the direction was for his pose in that photo, it's not bad or anything but I'm unsure what he's going for.

Anazina

I'll try to say something other than tediously parroting an ordinal.

The polls apparently put Labour slightly ahead.

I submit that no-one really cares.

And that opinion polls are a waste of time.

Comparing the two main parties at the moment is like arguing which morsel of dog shit on your boots is the more appealing.

Philip_Thompson

FPT

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know you'll all be shocked to know that Chris Grayling shows another sector he is as useful as a marzipan dildo

Road haulage firms have accused Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, of failing to put in place any credible contingency plans for a 'no-deal' Brexit scenario, as well as "knowing nothing" about their industry.

Speaking to the Telegraph, industry leaders said they were left astonished in recent meetings with Mr Grayling where he appeared to be unaware that British lorry drivers would not be able to carry goods on the continent if the UK crashes out of the bloc.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

A couple of vertically challenged planks beat Chris Grayling in an IQ test this week.

That's an odd phrase - if it's 'as thick as' why does it need short planks? One imagines that long planks are equally as thick.

If though the matter is about length then even a short plank is pretty 'deep', and of course there's no merit in having two, unless you lay them end-to end.

Most sayings don't make any sense when you think them through. Like what's the point of having a cake if you don't intend to eat it.

A lot of that is because either the sayings or the language have evolved separately thus divorcing the literal phrase from what we understand it. Eg for cakes the original expression was that "you can't eat your cake and (still) have it" ... that actually makes sense unlike the modern expression. Not sure the etymology of the 2 short planks expression.

It is curious how an expression could change from making sense to not making sense, not even from some evolution of culture or language which makes it no longer understandable, but just because the word order has been mixed up over time. Says something about the limitations of logical development of anything relating to humanity perhaps!

Indeed! In fact that kind of links back to Robert's excellent video two threads ago, or the conspiracy theories referenced in this OP. People have an amazing ability to believe that which is either illogical or incorrect especially once that's been expressed by others. The fact we can unquestioningly switch an expression around reversing its meaning but still intending to convey the original intent makes me wonder how much else groupthink is in fact completely backwards. More than we realise no doubt.

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

Good! Our intelligence agencies should be getting put to good use. If they want to continue to get out intelligence too then they need to make a deal.

Seems a bit fanciful of them - is it not more likely that loads of people get the documents, so many that someone is bound to leak it, or just that we can guess what their proposals will be?

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/oliver_wright/status/1029836166919479296

It just keeps coming. As many of us on here warned, way back when JC first ran, with the immortal words to John McD - 'make sure I don't win'.

It keeps coming and he keeps on keeping on, as it were.

Indeed. He is becoming the Teflon Trot.

Nothing seems to matter.

Indeed so, and everyone needs to make some peace with that I guess.

Anazina said:

Comparing the two main parties at the moment is like arguing which morsel of dog shit on your boots is the more appealing.

There are still merits to determining which is worse, if one is willing to hold one's nose to do so - as I've noted before there is a difference between having a shit stain and being covered in shit. I don't encourage people to choose a least worst option, and I don't like to do it myself, but there is a reason it usually predominates.

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know you'll all be shocked to know that Chris Grayling shows another sector he is as useful as a marzipan dildo

Road haulage firms have accused Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, of failing to put in place any credible contingency plans for a 'no-deal' Brexit scenario, as well as "knowing nothing" about their industry.

Speaking to the Telegraph, industry leaders said they were left astonished lorry drivers would not be able to carry goods on the continent if the UK crashes out of the bloc.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

A couple of vertically challenged planks beat Chris Grayling in an IQ test this week.

That's an odd phrase - if it's 'as thick as' why does it need short planks? One imagines that long planks are equally as thick.

If though the matter is about length then even a short plank is pretty 'deep', and of course there's no merit in having two, unless you lay them end-to end.

Most sayings don't make any sense when you think them through. Like what's the point of having a cake if you don't intend to eat it.

A lot of that is because either the sayings or the language have evolved separately thus divorcing the literal phrase from what we understand it. Eg for cakes the original expression was that "you can't eat your cake and (still) have it" ... that actually makes sense unlike the modern expression. Not sure the etymology of the 2 short planks expression.

It is curious how an expression could change from making sense to not making sense, not even from some evolution of culture or language which makes it no longer understandable, but just because the word order has been mixed up over time. Says something about the limitations of logical development of anything relating to humanity perhaps!

Indeed! In fact that kind of links back to Robert's excellent video two threads ago, or the conspiracy theories referenced in this OP. People have an amazing ability to believe that which is either illogical or incorrect especially once that's been expressed by others. The fact we can unquestioningly switch an expression around reversing its meaning but still intending to convey the original intent makes me wonder how much else groupthink is in fact completely backwards. More than we realise no doubt.

The one that does my head in is carrot and stick. The carrot is on a stick held in front of the donkey to motivate it to walk forwards it's not a question of giving the donkey one or beating it with the other. Gah!

Anazina

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Good! Our intelligence agencies should be getting put to good use. If they want to continue to get out intelligence too then they need to make a deal.

Seems a bit fanciful of them - is it not more likely that loads of people get the documents, so many that someone is bound to leak it, or just that we can guess what their proposals will be?

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/oliver_wright/status/1029836166919479296

It just keeps coming. As many of us on here warned, way back when JC first ran, with the immortal words to John McD - 'make sure I don't win'.

It keeps coming and he keeps on keeping on, as it were.

Indeed. He is becoming the Teflon Trot.

Nothing seems to matter.

Indeed so, and everyone needs to make some peace with that I guess.

Anazina said:

Comparing the two main parties at the moment is like arguing which morsel of dog shit on your boots is the more appealing.

There are still merits to determining which is worse, if one is willing to hold one's nose to do so - as I've noted before there is a difference between having a shit stain and being covered in shit. I don't encourage people to choose a least worst option, and I don't like to do it myself, but there is a reason it usually predominates.

I read that as 'Brexit is being buggered'.

IanB2

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know you'll all be shocked to know that Chris Grayling shows another sector he is as useful as a marzipan dildo

Road haulage firms have accused Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, of failing to put in place any credible contingency plans for a 'no-deal' Brexit scenario, as well as "knowing nothing" about their industry.

Speaking to the Telegraph, industry leaders said they were left astonished in recent meetings with Mr Grayling where he appeared to be unaware that British lorry drivers would not be able to carry goods on the continent if the UK crashes out of the bloc.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

A couple of vertically challenged planks beat Chris Grayling in an IQ test this week.

That's an odd phrase - if it's 'as thick as' why does it need short planks? One imagines that long planks are equally as thick.

If though the matter is about length then even a short plank is pretty 'deep', and of course there's no merit in having two, unless you lay them end-to end.

Most sayings don't make any sense when you think them through. Like what's the point of having a cake if you don't intend to eat it.

A lot of that is because either the sayings or the language have evolved separately thus divorcing the literal phrase from what we understand it. Eg for cakes the original expression was that "you can't eat your cake and (still) have it" ... that actually makes sense unlike the modern expression. Not sure the etymology of the 2 short planks expression.

It is curious how an expression could change from making sense to not making sense, not even from some evolution of culture or language which makes it no longer understandable, but just because the word order has been mixed up over time. Says something about the limitations of logical development of anything relating to humanity perhaps!

The Italian equivalent to 'cake and eat it' is more easily understandable, if less politically correct: you can't have (or 'wanting to have...') a full bottle and a drunken wife

Philip_Thompson

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Good! Our intelligence agencies should be getting put to good use. If they want to continue to get out intelligence too then they need to make a deal.

Seems a bit fanciful of them - is it not more likely that loads of people get the documents, so many that someone is bound to leak it, or just that we can guess what their proposals will be?

As much as I'd love to imagine James Bond is getting involved you're right a leak is quite probable. Doubt it's a guess, sounds awfully specific.

kle4

rottenborough said:

Ok, now I'm pissed.

Brown was Chancellor, and key architect of THREE Labour election victories. The most in their history and likely the last for a very long time. He was thinking how Labour could actually win in a real election before Bastani was in trousers.

Once out of the clique, people don't respect you no matter the accomplishments. I doubt Labour are alone in that, but there seems particularly little appreciation for the work of that period. Which is odd, as even though he rebelled plenty of times Corbyn was there the whole time so presumably backed most of the things the government did in those times, if not on some big issues.

IanB2

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know you'll all be shocked to know that Chris Grayling shows another sector he is as useful as a marzipan dildo

Road haulage firms have accused Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, of failing to put in place any credible contingency

Speaking to the Telegraph, industry leaders said they were left astonished lorry drivers would not be able to carry goods on the continent if the UK crashes out of the bloc.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

A couple of vertically challenged planks beat Chris Grayling in an IQ test this week.

That's an odd phrase - if it's 'as thick as' why does it need short planks? One imagines that long planks are equally as thick.

If though the matter is about length then even a short plank is pretty 'deep', and of course there's no merit in having two, unless you lay them end-to end.

Most sayings don't make any sense when you think them through. Like what's the point of having a cake if you don't intend to eat it.

A lot of that is because either the sayings or the language have evolved separately thus divorcing the literal phrase from what we understand it. Eg for cakes the original expression was that "you can't eat your cake and (still) have it" ... that actually makes sense unlike the modern expression. Not sure the etymology of the 2 short planks expression.

It is curious how an expression could change from making sense to not making sense, not even from some evolution of culture or language which makes it no longer understandable, but just because the word order has been mixed up over time. Says something about the limitations of logical development of anything relating to humanity perhaps!

Indeed! In fact that kind of links back to Robert's excellent video two threads ago, or the conspiracy theories referenced in this OP. People have an amazing ability to believe that which is either illogical or incorrect especially once that's been expressed by others. The fact we can unquestioningly switch an expression around reversing its meaning but still intending to convey the original intent makes me wonder how much else groupthink is in fact completely backwards. More than we realise no doubt.

The one that does my head in is carrot and stick. The carrot is on a stick held in front of the donkey to motivate it to walk forwards it's not a question of giving the donkey one or beating it with the other. Gah!

'Exception proves the rule' is another, the word prove once meaning to test,

rottenborough

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Ok, now I'm pissed.

Brown was Chancellor, and key architect of THREE Labour election victories. The most in their history and likely the last for a very long time. He was thinking how Labour could actually win in a real election before Bastani was in trousers.

Once out of the clique, people don't respect you no matter the accomplishments. I doubt Labour are alone in that, but there seems particularly little appreciation for the work of that period. Which is odd, as even though he rebelled plenty of times Corbyn was there the whole time so presumably backed most of the things the government did in those times, if not on some big issues.

I suspect he was against every single thing the Labour government did, because that is his default.

williamglenn

An interesting editorial decision from the post-Dacre Mail.
https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/1029846817196916736?s=21

Mortimer

Thanks to whoever (maybe @viewcode ?)posted the link to ‘The day that Britain stopped’ earlier. The BBC video doesn’t work any more but I found it elsewhere, and very much enjoyed it.

I do like the near future mocumentary style programme - any others anyone can recommend?

Anazina

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know you'll all be shocked to know that Chris Grayling shows another sector he is as useful as a marzipan dildo

Road haulage firms have accused Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, of failing to put in place any credible contingency plans for a 'no-deal' Brexit scenario, as well as "knowing nothing" about their industry.

Speaking to the Telegraph, industry leaders said they were left astonished in recent meetings with Mr Grayling where he appeared to be unaware that British lorry drivers would not be able to carry goods on the continent if the UK crashes out of the bloc.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

A couple of vertically challenged planks beat Chris Grayling in an IQ test this week.

That's an odd phrase - if it's 'as thick as' why does it need short planks? One imagines that long planks are equally as thick.

If though the matter is about length then even a short plank is pretty 'deep', and of course there's no merit in having two, unless you lay them end-to end.

Most sayings don't make any sense when you think them through. Like what's the point of having a cake if you don't intend to eat it.

A lot of that is because either the sayings or the language have evolved separately thus divorcing the literal phrase from what we understand it. Eg for cakes the original expression was that "you can't eat your cake and (still) have it" ... that actually makes sense unlike the modern expression. Not sure the etymology of the 2 short planks expression.

It is curious how an expression could change from making sense to not making sense, not even from some evolution of culture or language which makes it no longer understandable, but just because the word order has been mixed up over time. Says something about the limitations of logical development of anything relating to humanity perhaps!

Indeed! SNIP.

There are quite a few classic idioms which are at least slightly syntactically awkward. It's part of their charm.

It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Hoist by his own petard.

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indeed! In fact that kind of links back to Robert's excellent video two threads ago, or the conspiracy theories referenced in this OP. People have an amazing ability to believe that which is either illogical or incorrect especially once that's been expressed by others. The fact we can unquestioningly switch an expression around reversing its meaning but still intending to convey the original intent makes me wonder how much else groupthink is in fact completely backwards. More than we realise no doubt.

The one that does my head in is carrot and stick. The carrot is on a stick held in front of the donkey to motivate it to walk forwards it's not a question of giving the donkey one or beating it with the other. Gah!

That's a great example. The original carrot and stick concept was a promised reward that couldn't actually be achieved (the donkey would never reach the carrot no matter how much he moved).

rottenborough

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

Anazina

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know you'll all be shocked to know that Chris Grayling shows another sector he is as useful as a marzipan dildo

Road haulage firms have accused Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, of failing to put in place any credible contingency

Speaking to the Telegraph, industry leaders said they were left astonished lorry drivers would not be able to carry goods on the continent if the UK crashes out of the bloc.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

A couple of vertically challenged planks beat Chris Grayling in an IQ test this week.

That's an odd phrase - if it's 'as thick as' why does it need short planks? One imagines that long planks are equally as thick.

If though the matter is about length then even a short plank is pretty 'deep', and of course there's no merit in having two, unless you lay them end-to end.

Most sayings don't make any sense when you think them through. Like what's the point of having a cake if you don't intend to eat it.

A lot of that is because either the sayings or the language have evolved separately thus divorcing the literal phrase from what we understand it. Eg for cakes the original expression was that "you can't eat your cake and (still) have it" ... that actually makes sense unlike the modern expression. Not sure the etymology of the 2 short planks expression.

It is curious how an expression could change from making sense to not making sense, not even from some evolution of culture or language which makes it no longer understandable, but just because the word order has been mixed up over time. Says something about the limitations of logical development of anything relating to humanity perhaps!

snip

The one that does my head in is carrot and stick. The carrot is on a stick held in front of the donkey to motivate it to walk forwards it's not a question of giving the donkey one or beating it with the other. Gah!

'Exception proves the rule' is another, the word prove once meaning to test,

This has got me thinking. I have just looked up: Sent to Coventry. Even there the etymology is thin, at best.

Philip_Thompson

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

Well if that's the case their man will become PM. Although Kinnock suggests otherwise.

Anazina

williamglenn said:

An interesting editorial decision from the post-Dacre Mail.
https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/1029846817196916736?s=21

A very negative headline from the new Remainer editor, Geordie Greig. Brexiteers losing the support of the Mail is a nontrivial risk for them.

kle4

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

Anazina

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

rottenborough

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

I think it's disgusting. But I guess the new members, the £3 brigade and the returning Trots and anti-semites, don't give two hoots for the recent history of the party, because everything is reborn comrade and all will be well.

Mortimer

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

But Major won an election...

rottenborough

Another balanced tweet from the Useful idiot in Chief:

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1029843856102252563

Ishmael_Z

TOPPING said:

The one that does my head in is carrot and stick. The carrot is on a stick held in front of the donkey to motivate it to walk forwards it's not a question of giving the donkey one or beating it with the other. Gah!

That is quite wrong, the expression means a combination of threat and bribe. Where is the threat in your version?

Richard_Nabavi

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Danny565

@rottenborough

I like/liked Brown a great deal, but come on - him losing the election wasn't just about the electoral cycle, it was about his HUGE deficiencies as a politician (or, more precisely, his deficiencies as the "lead singer" -- by all accounts he was pretty good as a back-room strategist).

Torby_Fennel

Anazina said:

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both have behaved with great dignity and responsibility since leaving office, I think it's fair to say.

Richard_Nabavi

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Foxy

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

ralphmalph

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

He was also a very nasty piece of work. The published recollections of the time categorically state that when his temper exploded any person in the vicinity, tea person, telephone operators, etc got the full "Brown" 4 letter rant at it's very nastiest.

williamglenn

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

The one that does my head in is carrot and stick. The carrot is on a stick held in front of the donkey to motivate it to walk forwards it's not a question of giving the donkey one or beating it with the other. Gah!

That is quite wrong, the expression means a combination of threat and bribe. Where is the threat in your version?

Apparently that misuse of the expression is all Churchill’s fault.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick

Anazina

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

When it mattered, in the aftermath of the GFC, he was decisive. Other than that I agree. But some PMs score one or two very important successes and are crap at everything else: Brown and Major fall into that category and are hence vastly underrated, because the successes they did have were so crucial.

Richard_Nabavi

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

He was also a very nasty piece of work. The published recollections of the time categorically state that when his temper exploded any person in the vicinity, tea person, telephone operators, etc got the full "Brown" 4 letter rant at it's very nastiest.

Yes, that too. But being a nasty piece of work is less of a disqualification for the job than being a decision black hole.

Anazina

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

But Major won an election...

Indeed. Against all odds. A remarkable achievement, underestimated by many.

Richard_Nabavi

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

To an extent yes, but he was an order of magnitude worse.

Danny565

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

I think the one thing May has over Brown (as far as public perceptions go) is that people still feel that, at heart, she's a decent, fairly modest person trying her best. Even when she's being spectacularly crap or getting tons of attacks from her colleagues in government, people still have a bit of sympathy for her, even if they think she's useless.

By contrast, people thought Brown was useless AND arrogant, which meant he threw away the "sympathy" card even when things were really bad for him (a bit like Hillary).

Richard_Nabavi

Anazina said:

When it mattered, in the aftermath of the GFC, he was decisive. Other than that I agree. But some PMs score one or two very important successes and are crap at everything else: Brown and Major fall into that category and are hence vastly underrated, because the successes they did have were so crucial.

He wasn't decisive at all. The government dithered disastrously and quite unnecessarily over Northern Rock, prompting the first bank run in the UK for 150 years. Luckily Alistair Darling - a good and talented man - managed to take control when it came to the bigger problems of RBS and Lloyds. Brown deserves zero credit.

Foxy

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

To an extent yes, but he was an order of magnitude worse.

Not much to choose between them in my book. As well as obstinancy and control freakery, May is unwilling to appoint capable cabinet ministers lest they become a threat.

The clergymans daughter vs the son of the manse is pretty much a dead heat.

Anazina

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

May is very similar to Brown in character, and generally useless as a PM. But it is still not inconceivable that she too could score a singular seminal success, should she fudge Brexit to the extend that economic damage is limited. That alone will be enough.

ralphmalph

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

He was also a very nasty piece of work. The published recollections of the time categorically state that when his temper exploded any person in the vicinity, tea person, telephone operators, etc got the full "Brown" 4 letter rant at it's very nastiest.

Yes, that too. But being a nasty piece of work is less of a disqualification for the job than being a decision black hole.

When you are a party banging on about workers rights, I disagree. That party has to practice what it preaches.

Foxy

Danny565 said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

I think the one thing May has over Brown (as far as public perceptions go) is that people still feel that, at heart, she's a decent, fairly modest person trying her best. Even when she's being spectacularly crap or getting tons of attacks from her colleagues in government, people still have a bit of sympathy for her, even if they think she's useless.

By contrast, people thought Brown was useless AND arrogant, which meant he threw away the "sympathy" card even when things were really bad for him (a bit like Hillary).

I think her hostile environment policy to Windrush migrants show that she is not as decent as she pretends to be.

ralphmalph

Foxy said:

Danny565 said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

I think the one thing May has over Brown (as far as public perceptions go) is that people still feel that, at heart, she's a decent, fairly modest person trying her best. Even when she's being spectacularly crap or getting tons of attacks from her colleagues in government, people still have a bit of sympathy for her, even if they think she's useless.

By contrast, people thought Brown was useless AND arrogant, which meant he threw away the "sympathy" card even when things were really bad for him (a bit like Hillary).

I think her hostile environment policy to Windrush migrants show that she is not as decent as she pretends to be.

Also her go home vans as well.

Richard_Nabavi

Foxy said:

Danny565 said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

I think the one thing May has over Brown (as far as public perceptions go) is that people still feel that, at heart, she's a decent, fairly modest person trying her best. Even when she's being spectacularly crap or getting tons of attacks from her colleagues in government, people still have a bit of sympathy for her, even if they think she's useless.

By contrast, people thought Brown was useless AND arrogant, which meant he threw away the "sympathy" card even when things were really bad for him (a bit like Hillary).

... her hostile environment policy to Windrush migrants....

Some post-truthiness creeping in, I see.

kle4

Ishmael_Z said:

TOPPING said:

The one that does my head in is carrot and stick. The carrot is on a stick held in front of the donkey to motivate it to walk forwards it's not a question of giving the donkey one or beating it with the other. Gah!

That is quite wrong, the expression means a combination of threat and bribe. Where is the threat in your version?

I don't know whether it is right or not, but I thought Topping's point was that the expression makes no sense because the thing giving rise to it does not contain a threat and a bribe.

Foxy

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

Danny565 said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

I think the one thing May has over Brown (as far as public perceptions go) is that people still feel that, at heart, she's a decent, fairly modest person trying her best. Even when she's being spectacularly crap or getting tons of attacks from her colleagues in government, people still have a bit of sympathy for her, even if they think she's useless.

By contrast, people thought Brown was useless AND arrogant, which meant he threw away the "sympathy" card even when things were really bad for him (a bit like Hillary).

I think her hostile environment policy to Windrush migrants show that she is not as decent as she pretends to be.

Some post-truthiness creeping in, I see.

Its the tip of the Iceberg.

DecrepitJohnL

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?

kle4

Anazina said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

May is very similar to Brown in character, and generally useless as a PM. But it is still not inconceivable that she too could score a singular seminal success, should she fudge Brexit to the extend that economic damage is limited. That alone will be enough.

She won't be thanked or rewarded for it, and will have to leave it to history to be kinder to her.

AndyJS

Regarding the Italy bridge collapse: I've heard of populist movements who demand that more public money ought to be spent on infrastructure — (Donald Trump, for example) — but I've never heard of a populist movement that specifically calls for less spending on it. But that apparently was the position of the Five Star Movement beforehand. Bizarre.

https://www.thelocal.it/20180815/five-star-movement-founder-reportedly-mocked-warnings-of-collapse-of-morandi-bridge

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/genoa-bridge-collapse-safety-issues-italy-government-five-star-movement-league-populists-a8492201.html

kle4

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction.

Except for the fact millions of non conservatives voted for it, otherwise spot on.

Good night all.

MarqueeMark

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?

Brexit is a purely voter concoction.

And in turn, partly a reaction to the concoction of Europhiles who prevented them having a say.

Richard_Nabavi

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?

It's a bit rich to blame Theresa May for Brexit, even if you do think it's a Conservative concoction (a remarkable stretch in itself, given that there was a referendum).

Gordon Brown led nothing. His government reacted - late - to the crisis, and in the end did what every single government in its position would have had to do, thanks to Darling. And, whilst it is true that the crisis 'started in America', and was a world crisis, Gordon Brown bears a lot of the responsibility for the fact that the UK was so badly hit; it was precisely his destruction of the financial supervision system which was the cause of that. For 150 years, before Brown, the UK had never had a bank run or a systemic crisis threatening the banking system, despite two world wars, the Great Depression, the banking crises of the late nineteenth century, the secondary banking crisis, the oil price crisis, etc. But he thought he knew better, took overall responsibility away from the Bank of England, and gave it to.. no-one.

What's more, he was warned, in terms, of how stupid this was. We should never forget Peter Lilley's prophetic words from 1997.

DecrepitJohnL

kle4 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction.

Except for the fact millions of non conservatives voted for it, otherwise spot on.

Good night all.

Voted for what? Canada plus? EEA? WTO? David Cameron even got the question wrong. And Theresa May triggered Article 50 also with no clear outcome in mind. You can't blame the voters.

fitalass

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Agreed, just trying to remember how many attempted political coups Brown had to weather during his term as Labour Leader and PM. IMHO, Brown was in fact the architect who laid the foundations that eventually led to the divisive Independence and EU Referendums.

Anazina

kle4 said:

Anazina said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

May is very similar to Brown in character, and generally useless as a PM. But it is still not inconceivable that she too could score a singular seminal success, should she fudge Brexit to the extend that economic damage is limited. That alone will be enough.

She won't be thanked or rewarded for it, and will have to leave it to history to be kinder to her.

Agreed.

fitalass

This is a fascinating must read article that Tim Marshall wrote two years ago.
The What & The Why - Entryism via Jeremy Corbyn - Stage Hard Left

"‘Entryist n, adj – The policy or practice of members of a particular political group joining an existing political party with the intention of changing its principles and policies, instead of forming a new party.’"

NickPalmer

I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.

kle4

DecrepitJohnL said:

kle4 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction.

Except for the fact millions of non conservatives voted for it, otherwise spot on.

Good night all.

Voted for what? Canada plus? EEA? WTO? David Cameron even got the question wrong. And Theresa May triggered Article 50 also with no clear outcome in mind. You can't blame the voters.

I wasn't blaming the voters for anything, I was pointing out that 'Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction' is blatant nonsense, particularly since you didn't specify, for instance, 'No deal Brexit', but, like the vote itself, all hypothetical Brexits. I've heavily criticised May for how she has approached it, including the triggering without a clear outcome, and the government will quite rightly take the blame for the chaotic way they have gone about this, no matter how hard a job it is, but while you mentioned May's leading of it that was not what you initially said nor could that specific aspect be inferred from what you claimed when trying to suggest Brexit itself was a purely Conservative thing. It wasn't and isn't. It hits them more powerfully, they have been in power during the various stages, but it is something they have ridden, poorly, not something they concocted.

Roger

ralphmalph said:

Foxy said:

Danny565 said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

I think the one thing May has over Brown (as far as public perceptions go) is that people still feel that, at heart, she's a decent, fairly modest person trying her best. Even when she's being spectacularly crap or getting tons of attacks from her colleagues in government, people still have a bit of sympathy for her, even if they think she's useless.

By contrast, people thought Brown was useless AND arrogant, which meant he threw away the "sympathy" card even when things were really bad for him (a bit like Hillary).

I think her hostile environment policy to Windrush migrants show that she is not as decent as she pretends to be.

Also her go home vans as well.

A typical 60+ Cnservative in fact.

AndyJS

NickPalmer said:

I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

Theuniondivvie

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

Brown certainly knew his party inside and out, or at least enough about the place it held in the affections of Scottish voters in 2015 to do a Macavity before taking his own little incumbency test.

DecrepitJohnL

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?

It's a bit rich to blame Theresa May for Brexit, even if you do think it's a Conservative concoction (a remarkable stretch in itself, given that there was a referendum).

Gordon Brown led nothing. His government reacted - late - to the crisis, and in the end did what every single government in its position would have had to do, thanks to Darling. And, whilst it is true that the crisis 'started in America', and was a world crisis, Gordon Brown bears a lot of the responsibility for the fact that the UK was so badly hit; it was precisely his destruction of the financial supervision system which was the cause of that. For 150 years, before Brown, the UK had never had a bank run or a systemic crisis threatening the banking system, despite two world wars, the Great Depression, the banking crises of the late nineteenth century, the secondary banking crisis, the oil price crisis, etc. But he thought he knew better, took overall responsibility away from the Bank of England, and gave it to.. no-one.

What's more, he was warned, in terms, of how stupid this was. We should never forget Peter Lilley's prophetic words from 1997.

It was Brown who led the response, and although you are probably right other countries would have responded in the same way eventually, surely that just means Brown was right about what needed to be done.

The reason Britain was so badly hit had sod all to do with financial supervision but was simply because we had (and have) a relatively large financial services sector.

Roger

rottenborough said:

Another balanced tweet from the Useful idiot in Chief:

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1029843856102252563

I think he has a point. I'm sensing that the smears have gone way to far and are being orchestrated by some pretty unsavoury right wing sources. Under the circumstances Corbyn seems to be showing a reasonable amount of dignity. I say that as someone who is not a fan.

Roger

<

Foxy

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

In large part it is priced in. Corbyns views on Israel or the IRA or Trident are not going to bother the people who do not care about such things.

The rest is that the voters will not blame themselves for the Conservative concoction of Brexit.

Roger

Foxy said:

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

In large part it is priced in. Corbyns views on Israel or the IRA or Trident are not going to bother the people who do not care about such things.

The rest is that the voters will not blame themselves for the Conservative concoction of Brexit.

Someone said to me yesterday after the latest assault on Corbyn 'They've certainly got it in for him haven't they!" . Now no one votes for someone out of sympathy but these constant attacks are raising his profile and perhaps persuading some who thought him a nonentity to take notice. Publicity works in mysterious and unredictable ways.

CarlottaVance

NickPalmer said:

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her.

Members possibly. Voters not so much:

Best PM (Own party 2017 vote*)/(Current VI):

May: 74 (88)
Corbyn: 50 (68)

*Con VI on May, Lab VI on Corbyn

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8dvhq299ql/TimesResults_180809_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

Dura_Ace

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

I doubt if Labour's had a sudden positive swing, any more than the Tories got a sudden bump with that You Gov which excited people last week. It's still basically level pegging. But the Tory press are mistaken in thinking that people who shrugged off the IRA stuff about Corbyn are suddenly going to get interested in what wreath he laid where whenever it was.

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her. That gives his position an underlying resilience that Mrs May struggles to achieve.

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

The tories need a better anti Corbyn strategy than: LOOK! TERRORISTS! It didn't work in 2016 and it's not working now.

viewcode

AndyJS said:

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.

archer101au

So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.

Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?

Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/details-eu-meeting-blew-away-mays-brexit-plan-suppressed-crucial/

viewcode

archer101au said:

So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.

Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?

Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/details-eu-meeting-blew-away-mays-brexit-plan-suppressed-crucial/

Or it could be that Brexit hurts both sides?

fitalass

viewcode said:

AndyJS said:

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.

What evidence do you have that the continued negative media scrutiny of Corbyn's unsavoury connections and behaviour has now become counter productive when his personal polling continues to take a hit with the key group that matters, the electorate? With Parliament still in recess, there will be many Labour MPs thankful that they have not been asked to either defend or justify Corbyn's presence at that wreath laying ceremony. That the few Labour politicians who have been doing TV/Radio have struggled to defend or support his behaviour speaks volumes.

viewcode

fitalass said:

viewcode said:

AndyJS said:

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.

What evidence do you have that the continued negative media scrutiny of Corbyn's unsavoury connections and behaviour has now become counter productive when his personal polling continues to take a hit with the key group that matters, the electorate? With Parliament still in recess, there will be many Labour MPs thankful that they have not been asked to either defend or justify Corbyn's presence at that wreath laying ceremony. That the few Labour politicians who have been doing TV/Radio have struggled to defend or support his behaviour speaks volumes.

I was answering @AndyJS's question, which referred to the Labour voting intention polling. I wasn't referring to Corbyn's approval numbers.

CarlottaVance

fitalass said:

viewcode said:

AndyJS said:

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.

What evidence do you have that the continued negative media scrutiny of Corbyn's unsavoury connections and behaviour has now become counter productive when his personal polling continues to take a hit with the key group that matters, the electorate? With Parliament still in recess, there will be many Labour MPs thankful that they have not been asked to either defend or justify Corbyn's presence at that wreath laying ceremony. That the few Labour politicians who have been doing TV/Radio have struggled to defend or support his behaviour speaks volumes.

It also stops Labour making any headway on issues that should be ideal for them - like yesterday’s “Bosses pay up 11%” story which (even though it’s not “their fault”) should have a Tory government on the ropes.

edmundintokyo

viewcode said:

archer101au said:

So the Remainers on this site are very fond of pointing out that there are no benefits from Brexit and that we have the best possible deal now and that Leavers are swivel-eyed loons for suggesting that there can be any advantages etc etc.

Bit embarrassing then that the EU are now saying that regulatory divergence from the UK just on services would potentially cut EU GDP by 8-9% over 15 years. If there are no benefits from Brexit, why would they care if the UK diverges?

Or is this simply proof of what Leavers have been saying all along - the EU single market is an inefficient protectionist construct and the EU's entire negotiating aim in Brexit is to hold the UK in the EU's regulatory orbit because they know that a clean Brexit would make the UK far more competitive than the EU....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/details-eu-meeting-blew-away-mays-brexit-plan-suppressed-crucial/

Or it could be that Brexit hurts both sides?

This is quite revealing of the Leave/Trump mindset, these people just can't get their heads around an arrangement benefiting both parties. They just assume if one side is winning the other side must be losing, and if they can make the other side lose, that means they must be winning.

oxfordsimon

Roger said:

rottenborough said:

Another balanced tweet from the Useful idiot in Chief:

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1029843856102252563

I think he has a point. I'm sensing that the smears have gone way to far and are being orchestrated by some pretty unsavoury right wing sources. Under the circumstances Corbyn seems to be showing a reasonable amount of dignity. I say that as someone who is not a fan.

Really? You are really going to claim this is some sort of grand conspiracy?

Unbelievable.

CarlottaVance

oxfordsimon said:

Roger said:

rottenborough said:

Another balanced tweet from the Useful idiot in Chief:

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1029843856102252563

I think he has a point. I'm sensing that the smears have gone way to far and are being orchestrated by some pretty unsavoury right wing sources. Under the circumstances Corbyn seems to be showing a reasonable amount of dignity. I say that as someone who is not a fan.

Really? You are really going to claim this is some sort of grand conspiracy?

Unbelievable.

Well, you know....it’s the .....(rhymes with “news”)

surby

Danny565 said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

As I recall from wikipedia Brown wrote his doctorate on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland - definitely a man who knows his party inside and out.

Not to say he has the solutions for the party now of course, but even so people really don't like it when former leaders chime in, do they?

I preferred him to Blair, frankly, certainly style wise.

He falls in the same bracket as Sir John Major – vastly underrated PMs whom history will judge more kindly than their present.

Both men were very poor at the cut and thrust of politics but both also scored major achievements – Brown for his role in the aftermath of the GFC and Major on Northern Ireland.

Don't be silly - Gordon Brown was, by a country mile, the most unsuitable person to be PM that we have had since the war, bar none.

He was a complete, utter, disaster. His big problem was a toxic combination of two big character flaws: he wanted to take all decisions himself (like Blair), but (unlike Blair) he was completely incapable of making decisions. A control freak incapable of controlling. As a result, files piled up in his study in No 10. He'd go and dither over them, and nothing happened.

His only redeeming feature is that at least he had the smarts to swallow his pride and bring in Peter Mandelson to help him out. That mitigated the damage.

Sounds like Mrs May, only without a Mandleson to bail her out.

I think the one thing May has over Brown (as far as public perceptions go) is that people still feel that, at heart, she's a decent, fairly modest person trying her best. Even when she's being spectacularly crap or getting tons of attacks from her colleagues in government, people still have a bit of sympathy for her, even if they think she's useless.

By contrast, people thought Brown was useless AND arrogant, which meant he threw away the "sympathy" card even when things were really bad for him (a bit like Hillary).

As Dr Fox pointed out, she was "decent" towards the Windrush people. Oh, really ? She has a vert nasty streak in her.

surby

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her.

Members possibly. Voters not so much:

Best PM (Own party 2017 vote*)/(Current VI):

May: 74 (88)
Corbyn: 50 (68)

*Con VI on May, Lab VI on Corbyn

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8dvhq299ql/TimesResults_180809_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

Most people consider this poll was an outlier.

surby

rottenborough said:

Another balanced tweet from the Useful idiot in Chief:

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1029843856102252563

I think this poll is an outlier too! But Labour vote has improved in the last two weeks or so.

surby

CarlottaVance said:

fitalass said:

viewcode said:

AndyJS said:

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.

What evidence do you have that the continued negative media scrutiny of Corbyn's unsavoury connections and behaviour has now become counter productive when his personal polling continues to take a hit with the key group that matters, the electorate? With Parliament still in recess, there will be many Labour MPs thankful that they have not been asked to either defend or justify Corbyn's presence at that wreath laying ceremony. That the few Labour politicians who have been doing TV/Radio have struggled to defend or support his behaviour speaks volumes.

It also stops Labour making any headway on issues that should be ideal for them - like yesterday’s “Bosses pay up 11%” story which (even though it’s not “their fault”) should have a Tory government on the ropes.

Labour is making headway.

surby

Copper prices falling. If this continues, recession is almost here.

MarqueeMark

surby said:

rottenborough said:

Another balanced tweet from the Useful idiot in Chief:

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1029843856102252563

I think this poll is an outlier too! But Labour vote has improved in the last two weeks or so.

5% of that poll won't have candidates to vote for. UKIP is utterly hollowed out.

AndyJS

surby said:

Copper prices falling. If this continues, recession is almost here.

Why is copper so important to the economy?

Sunil_Prasannan

rottenborough said:

More utter bollx:

https://twitter.com/James4Labour/status/1029799018686230528


After three terms, a party loses. These cultists have no idea about political history or how electorates work or, well, frankly, how to sit on the toilet the right way around.

Brown got 258 MPs, Corbyn only got 4 more = 262 MPs.

Sunil_Prasannan

AndyJS said:

surby said:

Copper prices falling. If this continues, recession is almost here.

Why is copper so important to the economy?

Electrical cable, presumably. Also plumbing fittings.

surby

AndyJS said:

surby said:

Copper prices falling. If this continues, recession is almost here.

Why is copper so important to the economy?

Copper is probably the best leading indicator. Also, another sign is the flattening bond yield curve.

CarlottaVance

surby said:

CarlottaVance said:

fitalass said:

viewcode said:

AndyJS said:

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.

What evidence do you have that the continued negative media scrutiny of Corbyn's unsavoury connections and behaviour has now become counter productive when his personal polling continues to take a hit with the key group that matters, the electorate? With Parliament still in recess, there will be many Labour MPs thankful that they have not been asked to either defend or justify Corbyn's presence at that wreath laying ceremony. That the few Labour politicians who have been doing TV/Radio have struggled to defend or support his behaviour speaks volumes.

It also stops Labour making any headway on issues that should be ideal for them - like yesterday’s “Bosses pay up 11%” story which (even though it’s not “their fault”) should have a Tory government on the ropes.

Labour is making headway.

Both parties are essentially flat.

CarlottaVance

surby said:

Copper prices falling. If this continues, recession is almost here.

Surely that reflects Chinese demand?

CarlottaVance

surby said:

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her.

Members possibly. Voters not so much:

Best PM (Own party 2017 vote*)/(Current VI):

May: 74 (88)
Corbyn: 50 (68)

*Con VI on May, Lab VI on Corbyn

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8dvhq299ql/TimesResults_180809_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

Most people consider this poll was an outlier.

The pattern is consistent. Tory voters rate May higher than Labour voters rate Corbyn.

CarlottaVance

An actor tweets:

https://twitter.com/eddiemarsan/status/1029894795156758528?s=21

Scott_P

The pound has endured its longest losing streak against the dollar since the financial crisis a decade ago because of mounting fears that the UK will crash out of the European Union in March and amid signs that the economy is struggling to gather momentum.

Sterling has fallen for 12 consecutive trading sessions, dipping 0.3 per cent to as low as $1.2689 yesterday, its weakest since June 2017. The last time the currency fell for 12 days running was in August 2008, weeks before Lehman Brothers went bust, tipping the global economy into recession.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/sterling-has-its-worst-run-since-crash-f8mq0m7td

CarlottaVance

CarlottaVance said:

surby said:

Copper prices falling. If this continues, recession is almost here.

Surely that reflects Chinese demand?

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/China-to-boost-railway-spending-by-10bn-to-absorb-trade-war-impact

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

surby said:

CarlottaVance said:

fitalass said:

viewcode said:

AndyJS said:

It's clear that most of the attacks on Corbyn are having almost no effect on his support. The reasons for that would be interesting to analyse.

@Foxy is correct: it's priced in. Corbyn is a mad old Lefty who likes espousing bien-pensant fashionable causes because crazy fool. This is not news. Saying he's a hypocritical anti-semite was informative the first few times. But after the first couple of thousand repetitions it's become counterproductive.

What evidence do you have that the continued negative media scrutiny of Corbyn's unsavoury connections and behaviour has now become counter productive when his personal polling continues to take a hit with the key group that matters, the electorate? With Parliament still in recess, there will be many Labour MPs thankful that they have not been asked to either defend or justify Corbyn's presence at that wreath laying ceremony. That the few Labour politicians who have been doing TV/Radio have struggled to defend or support his behaviour speaks volumes.

It also stops Labour making any headway on issues that should be ideal for them - like yesterday’s “Bosses pay up 11%” story which (even though it’s not “their fault”) should have a Tory government on the ropes.

Labour is making headway.

Both parties are essentially flat.

Because neither Leavers nor Remainers have a viable party to move their support towards. The LibDems chances of attracting Remainers MIGHT improve if they had a less moribund leader who wasn't spending his time checking out alternative parties himself. Leavers don't have a viable party to move towards at all. UKIP is moribund.

The winning bet at the next election looks to be reduced turnout.

surby

CarlottaVance said:

surby said:

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her.

Members possibly. Voters not so much:

Best PM (Own party 2017 vote*)/(Current VI):

May: 74 (88)
Corbyn: 50 (68)

*Con VI on May, Lab VI on Corbyn

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8dvhq299ql/TimesResults_180809_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

Most people consider this poll was an outlier.

The pattern is consistent. Tory voters rate May higher than Labour voters rate Corbyn.

True. We are less cultist.

Sunil_Prasannan

surby said:

CarlottaVance said:

surby said:

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

The underlying difference is that most Labour members like Corbyn and look forward to his being PM, while most Tory members seem less than enthusiastic about Mrs May and mainly differ on when to remove her.

Members possibly. Voters not so much:

Best PM (Own party 2017 vote*)/(Current VI):

May: 74 (88)
Corbyn: 50 (68)

*Con VI on May, Lab VI on Corbyn

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8dvhq299ql/TimesResults_180809_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

Most people consider this poll was an outlier.

The pattern is consistent. Tory voters rate May higher than Labour voters rate Corbyn.

True. We are less cultist.

Surby the cultist writes...

Casino_Royale

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?

It's a bit rich to blame Theresa May for Brexit, even if you do think it's a Conservative concoction (a remarkable stretch in itself, given that there was a referendum).

Gordon Brown led nothing. His government reacted - late - to the crisis, and in the end did what every single government in its position would have had to do, thanks to Darling. And, whilst it is true that the crisis 'started in America', and was a world crisis, Gordon Brown bears a lot of the responsibility for the fact that the UK was so badly hit; it was precisely his destruction of the financial supervision system which was the cause of that. For 150 years, before Brown, the UK had never had a bank run or a systemic crisis threatening the banking system, despite two world wars, the Great Depression, the banking crises of the late nineteenth century, the secondary banking crisis, the oil price crisis, etc. But he thought he knew better, took overall responsibility away from the Bank of England, and gave it to.. no-one.

What's more, he was warned, in terms, of how stupid this was. We should never forget Peter Lilley's prophetic words from 1997.

I think Alastair Darling is hugely underappreciated.

MarqueeMark

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mind you, it's instructive to see history being rewritten so quickly. Anyone who thinks this government is unusually dysfunctional has already completely forgotten the Brown years.

Gordon Brown was hit by the global financial crisis. Brexit is a purely Conservative concoction. That's the difference. Brexit was not "started in America" nor foisted on us by Brussels. Gordon Brown led the international response to the GFC. Theresa May is leading what exactly?

It's a bit rich to blame Theresa May for Brexit, even if you do think it's a Conservative concoction (a remarkable stretch in itself, given that there was a referendum).

Gordon Brown led nothing. His government reacted - late - to the crisis, and in the end did what every single government in its position would have had to do, thanks to Darling. And, whilst it is true that the crisis 'started in America', and was a world crisis, Gordon Brown bears a lot of the responsibility for the fact that the UK was so badly hit; it was precisely his destruction of the financial supervision system which was the cause of that. For 150 years, before Brown, the UK had never had a bank run or a systemic crisis threatening the banking system, despite two world wars, the Great Depression, the banking crises of the late nineteenth century, the secondary banking crisis, the oil price crisis, etc. But he thought he knew better, took overall responsibility away from the Bank of England, and gave it to.. no-one.

What's more, he was warned, in terms, of how stupid this was. We should never forget Peter Lilley's prophetic words from 1997.

It was Brown who led the response, and although you are probably right other countries would have responded in the same way eventually, surely that just means Brown was right about what needed to be done.

The reason Britain was so badly hit had sod all to do with financial supervision but was simply because we had (and have) a relatively large financial services sector.

It takes a certain kind of stupid to end regulation of the financial services sector when, as you admit, the UK has such a relatively large financial services sector.

Yep, Gordon Brown was that kind of stupid.