In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
My opinion has always been that the prophets predicting the end of the world stuff are wrong, but it doesn't mean that it won't be very challenging.
We are all most certain to swap one load of red tape for another set, if that turns out to be better, worse or the same but for different reasons , we won't know for 20-30 years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, underlying all of this is that there is a mutual benefits for the UK and EU to continue to trade and ultimately that will drive towards a fudge that the UK can say we have left and the EU can say see we punished them for leaving.
The UK does have a big advantage that we a stable society, (at least in the short term) avoided the threat of mad far leftist anti-business types running the country, top class universities, and strong enforcement of laws. All of which makes the UK an attractive place to invest in.
I think in 25 years we will probably bemoaning many aspects of various trade deals we have signed up to, while still being a leading world economy (albeit China being the dominant power rather than US or EU).
One thing I am certain of is if we had stayed a vote for Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. If we had remained, 25 years down the line, it would be ever closer union / alignment etc. Now that might be advantageous against the might of China, or it might hamper those trying to be nimble to an even more globalized world economy.
I think the big unknown is what happens to the UK car industry over the next half decade. It’s conceivable that it could be fine - and equally so that it gets eviscerated. Other stuff like some farming sectors might be collateral damage, but are not big enough to shift the dial.
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
If so, and I'm sceptical as to how checks won't be required, how's Boris going to get out of this when the time comes? Hope everyone has forgotten/doesn't notice? Use a definition a 'checks' no one was previously familiar with? Blame the Irish?
Those checks will be hard treaty obligations once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed. Johnson either has no intention of implementing his treaty or he is lying to the people of Northern Ireland and the UK about what he's signed up to. It will go badly either way.
Go badly for whom? We had a Mayor of London once who swore blind he would not cut fire stations, and he's done all right for himself. Then there's the bus fellow -- has anyone seen one of his painted buses? If there do turn out to be checks then CCHQ will say Dom had war-gamed and game-theoried his way to a brilliant negotiating strategy and its failure just shows the perfidy of Brussels so we need to hire more physicists. Oh, and Boris will continue to deny it at PMQs. The bottom line is that most people don't care and the ones who do, don't vote for Boris anyway.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
I'm not well placed to answer that question as I've only been in the Labour party for a little over a month, but I am unaware of such research within the party, and I agree that this is crazy. There's an ongoing enquiry into the causes of the election defeat, but unfortunately this isn't informing the leadership contest. Anyway, explaining the defeat is not the same thing as understanding what changes need to be made.
Fortunately, other organisations are doing research. There's the well known Channel 4 focus group, but that's a very small sample size fed very short soundbites (very hard to be fair to the candidates there), and I am sceptical about it even though it agrees with my pre-conceived ideas. Hopefully, there'll be more to come. But the Labour party shouldn't be relying on the media to do their job for them.
Not according to the leadership candidates more than one of which I have heard ascribe the election loss to a failure in communication. Presumably the communication they were thinking about wasn't just leading articles in Living Marxism.
If so, and I'm sceptical as to how checks won't be required, how's Boris going to get out of this when the time comes? Hope everyone has forgotten/doesn't notice? Use a definition a 'checks' no one was previously familiar with? Blame the Irish?
Those checks will be hard treaty obligations once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed. Johnson either has no intention of implementing his treaty or he is lying to the people of Northern Ireland and the UK about what he's signed up to. It will go badly either way.
Go badly for whom? We had a Mayor of London once who swore blind he would not cut fire stations, and he's done all right for himself. Then there's the bus fellow -- has anyone seen one of his painted buses? If there do turn out to be checks then CCHQ will say Dom had war-gamed and game-theoried his way to a brilliant negotiating strategy and its failure just shows the perfidy of Brussels so we need to hire more physicists. Oh, and Boris will continue to deny it at PMQs. The bottom line is that most people don't care and the ones who do, don't vote for Boris anyway.
Most people don't have to spend an extra few minutes / hour filling in paperwork due to a fire station being closed.
The fact these changes may result in people having to fill in forms means that rather than forgetting the promise (re fire stations was made) every day they will be reminded about it.
And that constant reminder won't help things over time.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
I'm not well placed to answer that question as I've only been in the Labour party for a little over a month, but I am unaware of such research within the party, and I agree that this is crazy. There's an ongoing enquiry into the causes of the election defeat, but unfortunately this isn't informing the leadership contest. Anyway, explaining the defeat is not the same thing as understanding what changes need to be made.
Fortunately, other organisations are doing research. There's the well known Channel 4 focus group, but that's a very small sample size fed very short soundbites (very hard to be fair to the candidates there), and I am sceptical about it even though it agrees with my pre-conceived ideas. Hopefully, there'll be more to come. But the Labour party shouldn't be relying on the media to do their job for them.
Not according to the leadership candidates more than one of which I have heard ascribe the election loss to a failure in communication. Presumably the communication they were thinking about wasn't just leading articles in Living Marxism.
'Living Marxism'? Your several years out of the loop. That publication morphed into 'Spiked' - now the most Boris/Brexit/Trump adoring organ on the planet.
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
Yep, I just checked
I also discovered he's married to Breakfast TV presenter Kate Garraway, who I now realise was the slightly Milfy woman next to him at the school....
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
Yep, I just checked
I also discovered he's married to Breakfast TV presenter Kate Garraway, who I now realise was the slightly Milfy woman next to him at the school....
I was aware of that. I think we can safely say he is batting well above his average in that respect.
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Doesnt the fact that only 20 constituencies nominated Corbyn (out of 600 odd?) and he won, make that data less meaningful than it might appear?
No - you are misinterpreting what those figures represent. The 20 which nominated Corbyn are out of the 49 which have so far made nominations. The trend is clear.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
I'm not well placed to answer that question as I've only been in the Labour party for a little over a month, but I am unaware of such research within the party, and I agree that this is crazy. There's an ongoing enquiry into the causes of the election defeat, but unfortunately this isn't informing the leadership contest. Anyway, explaining the defeat is not the same thing as understanding what changes need to be made.
Fortunately, other organisations are doing research. There's the well known Channel 4 focus group, but that's a very small sample size fed very short soundbites (very hard to be fair to the candidates there), and I am sceptical about it even though it agrees with my pre-conceived ideas. Hopefully, there'll be more to come. But the Labour party shouldn't be relying on the media to do their job for them.
Not according to the leadership candidates more than one of which I have heard ascribe the election loss to a failure in communication. Presumably the communication they were thinking about wasn't just leading articles in Living Marxism.
'Living Marxism'? Your several years out of the loop. That publication morphed into 'Spiked' - now the most Boris/Brexit/Trump adoring organ on the planet.
Yes I daresay. I first came across it some time ago when it was distributed on the streets by my (aristocratic) flatmate when they were a member of the RCP.
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
I'd guess his missus wins most of the bread with all her different gigs. Unfortunately my gym pipes in Smooth Radio and Kate Garraway intersperses shite music with inanity, for which I imagine she gets relatively big bucks
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
I remember going to a presentation of his, I don't remember when or where. He was very entertaining, but I remember wondering who would ever have thought it wise to let such a reprobate anywhere near a position of influence.
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
Says the account that claimed to have voted Remain....
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
Yep, I just checked
I also discovered he's married to Breakfast TV presenter Kate Garraway, who I now realise was the slightly Milfy woman next to him at the school....
I seem to recall that he turned up at a PB drinks long ago, at the National Liberal Club (those were the days...)
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
Says the account that claimed to have voted Remain....
I voted Remain, and it looks to me like a reasonable and interesting question to ask. We have, after all, had 3.5 years worth of data to process since the vote, and I voted Remain despite, rather than because of, its advocates in the first place.
17% swing to the Tories and 27% to the LibDems against Labour in London? Suggests they might just have bigger issues than the Hindus......
Brent north used to be a very safe Tory seat pre 1997.
The lab candidate in Alperton was suspended for anti Muslim and anti Pakistan tweets. I live next door to this ward, and although Libdems used to have past strength in Alperton if Labour are losing areas like it they are in very deep trouble come the locals in May.
Agree the locals will be challenging for Lab with all the met boroughs up, which includes red wall areas like Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Wakefield.
Lab's big problem is that because the met boroughs have previously been up for election when Lab were in opposition they are pretty much already maxed out e.g.
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Yeah, it's clear than nominating Corbyn in 2016 is a poor predictor. And for anyone who prefers to go on 2015:
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
It's the Leavers you should be concerned about. They've got some serious questions to answer if Brexit doesn't delivery vast social, economic and political improvements across the length and breadth of the land. I think Boris and Cummings understand the danger, hence their slogan of 'Get Brexit Done' - marketing Brexit as something nasty to be quickly rid of and forgotten about. But I doubt that will wash. Millions are poised in expectation for an unparalleled basket of goodies.
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Yeah, it's clear than nominating Corbyn in 2016 is a poor predictor. And for anyone who prefers to go on 2015:
I know no-one cares about the US, but the Ipsos poll out today is extraordinary:
Sanders drops one point to 19% Biden drops six points to 18% Warren drops two points to 12%
Don't Know is going to win this race by a country mile.
The US election is my number one concern, in fact, and whilst my opinion that Trump will lose decisively remains as strong as ever, this - a general lack of enthusiasm for any of the Dem candidates - does not on the face of it seem to bode well.
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
Yep, I just checked
I also discovered he's married to Breakfast TV presenter Kate Garraway, who I now realise was the slightly Milfy woman next to him at the school....
And when Piers Morgan realised they were an item, famously said
"If I'd realised the bar was so low, I'd have had a go myself...."
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
Yep, I just checked
I also discovered he's married to Breakfast TV presenter Kate Garraway, who I now realise was the slightly Milfy woman next to him at the school....
You are clearly not SeanT then.
He would never have been allowed near a school.....
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
It's the Leavers you should be concerned about. They've got some serious questions to answer if Brexit doesn't delivery vast social, economic and political improvements across the length and breadth of the land. I think Boris and Cummings understand the danger, hence their slogan of 'Get Brexit Done' - marketing Brexit as something nasty to be quickly rid of and forgotten about. But I doubt that will wash. Millions are poised in expectation for an unparalleled basket of goodies.
As if it were something imposed on them by a third party...but the key point is, they got away with it, so why won't they continue to do so? Blame Farage and Carry On is the watchword.
In the US, Sanders has topped another National Democratic Primary poll.
But...
He's only on 19%.
That's an extraordinarily open race.
I know no-one cares about the US, but the Ipsos poll out today is extraordinary:
Sanders drops one point to 19% Biden drops six points to 18% Warren drops two points to 12%
Don't Know is going to win this race by a country mile.
If replicated in only Iowa, then only Biden and Sanders get delegates.
I'm not sure you're right there, as this poll includes "don't know" (and there are a lot). There's no "don't know" option in actual primaries/caucuses.
In the US, Sanders has topped another National Democratic Primary poll.
But...
He's only on 19%.
That's an extraordinarily open race.
I know no-one cares about the US, but the Ipsos poll out today is extraordinary:
Sanders drops one point to 19% Biden drops six points to 18% Warren drops two points to 12%
Don't Know is going to win this race by a country mile.
If replicated in only Iowa, then only Biden and Sanders get delegates.
That's not how the caucuses work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses In the closed caucuses, candidates must meet a viability threshold of 15 percent within an individual precinct in order to be considered viable, with supporters of non-viable candidates then allowed to transfer their support to one of the remaining viable candidates or merge with another non-viable group in order to become viable. County convention delegates are then awarded proportionally on the basis of the results of the precinct caucuses, with the 41 pledged delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention allocated on the basis of the state delegate equivalents. Of the 41 pledged delegates, between 5 and 8 are allocated to each of the state's 4 congressional districts and another 5 allocated to party leaders and elected officials (PLEO delegates) in addition to 9 at-large pledged delegates....
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
Yep, I just checked
I also discovered he's married to Breakfast TV presenter Kate Garraway, who I now realise was the slightly Milfy woman next to him at the school....
And when Piers Morgan realised they were an item, famously said
"If I'd realised the bar was so low, I'd have had a go myself...."
To which the obvious response is, "I doubt the bar is THAT low, Piers."
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Doesnt the fact that only 20 constituencies nominated Corbyn (out of 600 odd?) and he won, make that data less meaningful than it might appear?
No - you are misinterpreting what those figures represent. The 20 which nominated Corbyn are out of the 49 which have so far made nominations. The trend is clear.
Ok sorry its out of 49 not 600 odd.
For the record Corbyn did get the most nominations in 2015, though not by a massive margin. In 2016 he crushed Smith in CLPs but only increased his margin in the overall vote a tiny bit.
I think it's fair to say that both times CLPs followed the winner, and in 2015 the order of CLPs followed the overall results for 1-2-3-4 order. They were pretty good for support levels too, for example Burnham barely got more CLPs than Cooper and their final votes was pretty close too. On the other hand Corbyn's clear but no better lead in CLPs in 2015 didn't reflect his overwhelming lead among members; even if you ignore registered supporters he cleared 50% of existing members and the CLPs hardly indicated that.
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Yeah, it's clear than nominating Corbyn in 2016 is a poor predictor. And for anyone who prefers to go on 2015:
So 2015 nomination is also a poor predictor of 2020 nomination.
I'm probably a fairly typical average Corbynista - loyal to the man, quite liked the programme, thought the 2019 election was a bit of a shambles. So far there is no clear ideological separation between the candidates - RLB wants automatic open selections, which is an internal process issue, Nandy's a bit less Remainish, but otherwise I've not heard anything. The perception is that RLB is continuity Corbyn, Starmer is the centre-left, and Nandy is somewhere in between, but that's all just general atmosphere so far.
Thus I've got an open mind, and I think most Corbynites and non-Corbynites do too. The old trench warfare has largely ceased at the moment.
The fault here is that of Richard Curtis and Ben Elton, who conspicuously failed to include an empire soldier in Blackadder Goes Forth.
A glaring ommission.
Fox's point here was clearly an incredibly stupid one and in his effort to fuel his anti-woke narrative he ended up grabbing at some straws. You can see he knows he can't really defend it.
Having said that... he kind of brings me round at the end of the clip. I much prefer a culture where people can voice any opinion and bad opinions are deconstructed as being obviously wrong, than a Twitter culture of "OH MY GOD WHAT AN AWFUL TERRIBLE PERSON YOU ARE" which David Schneider exemplifies. Cancel culture just makes everyone angry, go to their tribes and no-one to have the emotional state to reflect on flawed views of their own tribe.
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Yeah, it's clear than nominating Corbyn in 2016 is a poor predictor. And for anyone who prefers to go on 2015:
So 2015 nomination is also a poor predictor of 2020 nomination.
I'm probably a fairly typical average Corbynista - loyal to the man, quite liked the programme, thought the 2019 election was a bit of a shambles. So far there is no clear ideological separation between the candidates - RLB wants automatic open selections, which is an internal process issue, Nandy's a bit less Remainish, but otherwise I've not heard anything. The perception is that RLB is continuity Corbyn, Starmer is the centre-left, and Nandy is somewhere in between, but that's all just general atmosphere so far.
Thus I've got an open mind, and I think most Corbynites and non-Corbynites do too. The old trench warfare has largely ceased at the moment.
My view of the candidates' ideology:
RLB: Continuity Corbyn. Starmer: Very left on social issues, moderate on economics but pretending not to be. Nandy: Reasonably far left on economics, centrist on social issues.
The choice between Starmer and Nandy is effectively whether you go for the middle class or working class votes respectively.
The fault here is that of Richard Curtis and Ben Elton, who conspicuously failed to include an empire soldier in Blackadder Goes Forth.
A glaring ommission.
Fox's point here was clearly an incredibly stupid one and in his effort to fuel his anti-woke narrative he ended up grabbing at some straws. You can see he knows he can't really defend it.
Having said that... he kind of brings me round at the end of the clip. I much prefer a culture where people can voice any opinion and bad opinions are deconstructed as being obviously wrong, than a Twitter culture of "OH MY GOD WHAT AN AWFUL TERRIBLE PERSON YOU ARE" which David Schneider exemplifies. Cancel culture just makes everyone angry, go to their tribes and no-one to have the emotional state to reflect on flawed views of their own tribe.
That's not unreasonable. But I'd also prefer a culture where ignorance wasn't celebrated with such media attention.
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Yeah, it's clear than nominating Corbyn in 2016 is a poor predictor. And for anyone who prefers to go on 2015:
So 2015 nomination is also a poor predictor of 2020 nomination.
I'm probably a fairly typical average Corbynista - loyal to the man, quite liked the programme, thought the 2019 election was a bit of a shambles. So far there is no clear ideological separation between the candidates - RLB wants automatic open selections, which is an internal process issue, Nandy's a bit less Remainish, but otherwise I've not heard anything. The perception is that RLB is continuity Corbyn, Starmer is the centre-left, and Nandy is somewhere in between, but that's all just general atmosphere so far.
Thus I've got an open mind, and I think most Corbynites and non-Corbynites do too. The old trench warfare has largely ceased at the moment.
The fault here is that of Richard Curtis and Ben Elton, who conspicuously failed to include an empire soldier in Blackadder Goes Forth.
A glaring ommission.
Fox's point here was clearly an incredibly stupid one and in his effort to fuel his anti-woke narrative he ended up grabbing at some straws. You can see he knows he can't really defend it.
Having said that... he kind of brings me round at the end of the clip. I much prefer a culture where people can voice any opinion and bad opinions are deconstructed as being obviously wrong, than a Twitter culture of "OH MY GOD WHAT AN AWFUL TERRIBLE PERSON YOU ARE" which David Schneider exemplifies. Cancel culture just makes everyone angry, go to their tribes and no-one to have the emotional state to reflect on flawed views of their own tribe.
That's not unreasonable. But I'd also prefer a culture where ignorance wasn't celebrated with such media attention.
That's where we are, producers (and the BBC is actually one of the worst in this regard) would rather a controversial opinion rather than an informed one.
In the US, Sanders has topped another National Democratic Primary poll.
But...
He's only on 19%.
That's an extraordinarily open race.
I know no-one cares about the US, but the Ipsos poll out today is extraordinary:
Sanders drops one point to 19% Biden drops six points to 18% Warren drops two points to 12%
Don't Know is going to win this race by a country mile.
If replicated in only Iowa, then only Biden and Sanders get delegates.
That's not how the caucuses work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses In the closed caucuses, candidates must meet a viability threshold of 15 percent within an individual precinct in order to be considered viable, with supporters of non-viable candidates then allowed to transfer their support to one of the remaining viable candidates or merge with another non-viable group in order to become viable. County convention delegates are then awarded proportionally on the basis of the results of the precinct caucuses, with the 41 pledged delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention allocated on the basis of the state delegate equivalents. Of the 41 pledged delegates, between 5 and 8 are allocated to each of the state's 4 congressional districts and another 5 allocated to party leaders and elected officials (PLEO delegates) in addition to 9 at-large pledged delegates....
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
My opinion has always been that the prophets predicting the end of the world stuff are wrong, but it doesn't mean that it won't be very challenging.
We are all most certain to swap one load of red tape for another set, if that turns out to be better, worse or the same but for different reasons , we won't know for 20-30 years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, underlying all of this is that there is a mutual benefits for the UK and EU to continue to trade and ultimately that will drive towards a fudge that the UK can say we have left and the EU can say see we punished them for leaving.
The UK does have a big advantage that we a stable society, (at least in the short term) avoided the threat of mad far leftist anti-business types running the country, top class universities, and strong enforcement of laws. All of which makes the UK an attractive place to invest in.
I think in 25 years we will probably bemoaning many aspects of various trade deals we have signed up to, while still being a leading world economy (albeit China being the dominant power rather than US or EU).
One thing I am certain of is if we had stayed a vote for Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. If we had remained, 25 years down the line, it would be ever closer union / alignment etc. Now that might be advantageous against the might of China, or it might hamper those trying to be nimble to an even more globalized world economy.
If Brexit turns out OK everyone will have supported it all along, with the FT and Economist leading the charge.
RLB: Continuity Corbyn. Starmer: Very left on social issues, moderate on economics but pretending not to be. Nandy: Reasonably far left on economics, centrist on social issues.
The choice between Starmer and Nandy is effectively whether you go for the middle class or working class votes respectively.
My take on your analysis:
RLB: "Continuity Corbyn" - from what I've seen, this is a reasonable shorthand, although she is her own person so I avoid the term (some argue it is gendered).
Starmer: I don't know what evidence there is that he is economically right of where he says he is? Arguably, his record as director of public prosecutions is evidence that he would be a bit more centrist on crime.
Nandy: I agree that she is economically left. She has her own approach (e.g. localising rather than nationalising energy) but it is not any less left-wing, just less centralising. Socially she is also left, but her willingness to engage constructively with people who are not is being spun by some as centrism, which really irritates me.
The middle- versus working-class votes thing: I think you are right that many people will make their decision in this way. It's unfortunate though.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
I'm not well placed to answer that question as I've only been in the Labour party for a little over a month, but I am unaware of such research within the party, and I agree that this is crazy. There's an ongoing enquiry into the causes of the election defeat, but unfortunately this isn't informing the leadership contest. Anyway, explaining the defeat is not the same thing as understanding what changes need to be made.
Fortunately, other organisations are doing research. There's the well known Channel 4 focus group, but that's a very small sample size fed very short soundbites (very hard to be fair to the candidates there), and I am sceptical about it even though it agrees with my pre-conceived ideas. Hopefully, there'll be more to come. But the Labour party shouldn't be relying on the media to do their job for them.
Not according to the leadership candidates more than one of which I have heard ascribe the election loss to a failure in communication. Presumably the communication they were thinking about wasn't just leading articles in Living Marxism.
It makes no difference in Knowsley who the Tory leader is, and in South Holland who leads Labour. The constituencies of people that count are the people who do vote Labour and need to be won to vote Labour in non-Labour winnable seats - the mirror image of what Cameron and Boris were quite good at. Unless Labour is thinking about what sort of leader, leadership, language and policy would embrace the extra voters, Tory, SNP and abstainers, that they need they are wasting their time.
I think you mean James Norton, not Graham. He would be at least more of a Roger Moore type Bond than Elba or Madden who would be similar to Craig in style
Yes, my mistake, I was typing in Waitrose. Graham Norton as Bond? As if.
Agree that (James) Norton would be smoother than the average Bond. And I think he would be good too. But Idris Elba, for me, would be the best choice.
Idris Elba is only 4 years younger than Dan Craig. In SPECTRE, Dan Craig was already looking like the love interest's dad......and that was five years ago.
The thing about Idris Elba, he is such a good actor that he could get the job on merit and would make a great Bond. The woke nonsense is about a deliberate effort to cast non white people in roles that are written for white men. But hell would hath no fury if the situation was reversed in any way.
In the world of non-amazing, ultra-bathetic, not-at-all-celebrity encounters, I was at a school thingy for my older kid yesterday and one of the other parents was..... Derek Draper.
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
Didn't he become some sort of counselor or self help "guru" after leaving politics?
Yep, I just checked
I also discovered he's married to Breakfast TV presenter Kate Garraway, who I now realise was the slightly Milfy woman next to him at the school....
And when Piers Morgan realised they were an item, famously said
"If I'd realised the bar was so low, I'd have had a go myself...."
Annoyingly, he went on to marry very well himself.
I think you mean James Norton, not Graham. He would be at least more of a Roger Moore type Bond than Elba or Madden who would be similar to Craig in style
Yes, my mistake, I was typing in Waitrose. Graham Norton as Bond? As if.
Agree that (James) Norton would be smoother than the average Bond. And I think he would be good too. But Idris Elba, for me, would be the best choice.
Idris Elba is only 4 years younger than Dan Craig. In SPECTRE, Dan Craig was already looking like the love interest's dad......and that was five years ago.
The thing about Idris Elba, he is such a good actor that he could get the job on merit and would make a great Bond. The woke nonsense is about a deliberate effort to cast non white people in roles that are written for white men. But hell would hath no fury if the situation was reversed in any way.
Payback for Elvis, The Stones etc being the white faces of black music, you could argue.
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
My opinion has always been that the prophets predicting the end of the world stuff are wrong, but it doesn't mean that it won't be very challenging.
We are all most certain to swap one load of red tape for another set, if that turns out to be better, worse or the same but for different reasons , we won't know for 20-30 years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, underlying all of this is that there is a mutual benefits for the UK and EU to continue to trade and ultimately that will drive towards a fudge that the UK can say we have left and the EU can say see we punished them for leaving.
The UK does have a big advantage that we a stable society, (at least in the short term) avoided the threat of mad far leftist anti-business types running the country, top class universities, and strong enforcement of laws. All of which makes the UK an attractive place to invest in.
I think in 25 years we will probably bemoaning many aspects of various trade deals we have signed up to, while still being a leading world economy (albeit China being the dominant power rather than US or EU).
One thing I am certain of is if we had stayed a vote for Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. If we had remained, 25 years down the line, it would be ever closer union / alignment etc. Now that might be advantageous against the might of China, or it might hamper those trying to be nimble to an even more globalized world economy.
If Brexit turns out OK everyone will have supported it all along, with the FT and Economist leading the charge.
Of course. After WW2 we found out that hardly anyone in Germany had been in the Nazi party. I heard Lionel Barber (ex FT editor) backtracking on the FT's remainery stance on the radio the other day.
We are lucky to have objective arbiters such as Goodwin to tell us who the thinking thinkers are.
I don't know what an 'objective arbiter' would look like in the circus of political comment, and I fear the concept has no meaning, but in Matthew Goodwin at least there is a clear, intelligent, thoughtful academic prepared to think and predict in the public space. The left too is not short of interesting and thoughtful contributions, and Goodwin is right in his anxiety that this should not be kept a closely guarded secret.
RLB: Continuity Corbyn. Starmer: Very left on social issues, moderate on economics but pretending not to be. Nandy: Reasonably far left on economics, centrist on social issues.
The choice between Starmer and Nandy is effectively whether you go for the middle class or working class votes respectively.
My take on your analysis:
RLB: "Continuity Corbyn" - from what I've seen, this is a reasonable shorthand, although she is her own person so I avoid the term (some argue it is gendered).
Starmer: I don't know what evidence there is that he is economically right of where he says he is? Arguably, his record as director of public prosecutions is evidence that he would be a bit more centrist on crime.
Nandy: I agree that she is economically left. She has her own approach (e.g. localising rather than nationalising energy) but it is not any less left-wing, just less centralising. Socially she is also left, but her willingness to engage constructively with people who are not is being spun by some as centrism, which really irritates me.
The middle- versus working-class votes thing: I think you are right that many people will make their decision in this way. It's unfortunate though.
RLB is not continuity Corbyn. I doubt she could find either Venezuela or Palestine on a map. She might be continuity McDonnell; she might be the furthest left of the candidates but she has shown little interest in matters abroad that fascinate Corbyn.
The fault here is that of Richard Curtis and Ben Elton, who conspicuously failed to include an empire soldier in Blackadder Goes Forth.
A glaring ommission.
That sounds like whataboutery.
But as just posted my intention is to refrain from getting involved in any further debate that is directly or indirectly about Laurence Fox.
Not really. I just think Fox was silly to highlight this, and his detractors are silly to use his comments against him.
If Fox wants to highlight the gratuitous use of'inclusiveness in movies for inclusiveness sake there are much better examples. And his detractors are silly to pretend this phenomenon does not exist, or that minorities are offended by it being pointed out.
We are lucky to have objective arbiters such as Goodwin to tell us who the thinking thinkers are.
I don't know what an 'objective arbiter' would look like in the circus of political comment, and I fear the concept has no meaning, but in Matthew Goodwin at least there is a clear, intelligent, thoughtful academic prepared to think and predict in the public space. The left too is not short of interesting and thoughtful contributions, and Goodwin is right in his anxiety that this should not be kept a closely guarded secret.
When everyone else in the political bubble was ejaculating prematurely about TIG, Goodwin was saying the vacancy was for a party that was socially conservative and economically left... isn’t that what Boris is trying to be?
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
My opinion has always been that the prophets predicting the end of the world stuff are wrong, but it doesn't mean that it won't be very challenging.
We are all most certain to swap one load of red tape for another set, if that turns out to be better, worse or the same but for different reasons , we won't know for 20-30 years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, underlying all of this is that there is a mutual benefits for the UK and EU to continue to trade and ultimately that will drive towards a fudge that the UK can say we have left and the EU can say see we punished them for leaving.
The UK does have a big advantage that we a stable society, (at least in the short term) avoided the threat of mad far leftist anti-business types running the country, top class universities, and strong enforcement of laws. All of which makes the UK an attractive place to invest in.
I think in 25 years we will probably bemoaning many aspects of various trade deals we have signed up to, while still being a leading world economy (albeit China being the dominant power rather than US or EU).
One thing I am certain of is if we had stayed a vote for Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. If we had remained, 25 years down the line, it would be ever closer union / alignment etc. Now that might be advantageous against the might of China, or it might hamper those trying to be nimble to an even more globalized world economy.
If Brexit turns out OK everyone will have supported it all along, with the FT and Economist leading the charge.
Of course. After WW2 we found out that hardly anyone in Germany had been in the Nazi party. I heard Lionel Barber (ex FT editor) backtracking on the FT's remainery stance on the radio the other day.
Yep. You certainly won't hear many SCons nowadays telling BJ that he was peddling lies over the EU referendum or that Brexit would damage public services and the economy.
Oh dear it appears the tw@tterati left are losing their shit because the bloke who has the #1 listened to podcast in the world said he will probably vote Bernie Sanders and Sanders campaign are going to use that in an advert...and their outrage is because said podcast occasionally (probably about 10 really right wing people) in nearly 1500 episodes.
In the US, Sanders has topped another National Democratic Primary poll.
But...
He's only on 19%.
That's an extraordinarily open race.
I know no-one cares about the US, but the Ipsos poll out today is extraordinary:
Sanders drops one point to 19% Biden drops six points to 18% Warren drops two points to 12%
Don't Know is going to win this race by a country mile.
If replicated in only Iowa, then only Biden and Sanders get delegates.
That's not how the caucuses work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses In the closed caucuses, candidates must meet a viability threshold of 15 percent within an individual precinct in order to be considered viable, with supporters of non-viable candidates then allowed to transfer their support to one of the remaining viable candidates or merge with another non-viable group in order to become viable. County convention delegates are then awarded proportionally on the basis of the results of the precinct caucuses, with the 41 pledged delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention allocated on the basis of the state delegate equivalents. Of the 41 pledged delegates, between 5 and 8 are allocated to each of the state's 4 congressional districts and another 5 allocated to party leaders and elected officials (PLEO delegates) in addition to 9 at-large pledged delegates....
I'm probably a fairly typical average Corbynista - loyal to the man, quite liked the programme, thought the 2019 election was a bit of a shambles. So far there is no clear ideological separation between the candidates - RLB wants automatic open selections, which is an internal process issue, Nandy's a bit less Remainish, but otherwise I've not heard anything. The perception is that RLB is continuity Corbyn, Starmer is the centre-left, and Nandy is somewhere in between, but that's all just general atmosphere so far.
Thus I've got an open mind, and I think most Corbynites and non-Corbynites do too. The old trench warfare has largely ceased at the moment.
Any thoughts on the question I asked earlier today, which I'm guessing you didn't see? (Apologies if you did see it!) It was in response to your summary of your CLP meeting. Copied below:
---
I remember you saying before that you didn't know anyone who was supporting Nandy, and that only two topics were really being discussed (who is left enough? who is capable of winning a general election?).
Did last night indicate a change in mood, or was it just that you were hearing from different people?
The thing about Idris Elba, he is such a good actor that he could get the job on merit and would make a great Bond. The woke nonsense is about a deliberate effort to cast non white people in roles that are written for white men. But hell would hath no fury if the situation was reversed in any way.
It's true that the Bond in the Fleming books makes no sense as a black man. The character is - and has to be - white.
But the film franchise is nothing to do with the books anymore. He now just has to be male and British. And even that is just my opinion. You could argue for dropping those 2 requirements as well. I personally would be uneasy with, say, a Mexican Bond (with all that that entails) but I wouldn't be offended if they were to go down that route.
We are lucky to have objective arbiters such as Goodwin to tell us who the thinking thinkers are.
I don't know what an 'objective arbiter' would look like in the circus of political comment, and I fear the concept has no meaning, but in Matthew Goodwin at least there is a clear, intelligent, thoughtful academic prepared to think and predict in the public space. The left too is not short of interesting and thoughtful contributions, and Goodwin is right in his anxiety that this should not be kept a closely guarded secret.
When everyone else in the political bubble was ejaculating prematurely about TIG, Goodwin was saying the vacancy was for a party that was socially conservative and economically left... isn’t that what Boris is trying to be?
Suggesting that 'everyone' in the political bubble was ejaculating prematurely about TIG suggests an adherence to a certain viewpoint also. Just as the folk who like Goodwin's Brexity analysis ejaculate, the commentators who liked TIG style politics ejaculated (prematurely or not).
In the US, Sanders has topped another National Democratic Primary poll.
But...
He's only on 19%.
That's an extraordinarily open race.
I know no-one cares about the US, but the Ipsos poll out today is extraordinary:
Sanders drops one point to 19% Biden drops six points to 18% Warren drops two points to 12%
Don't Know is going to win this race by a country mile.
If replicated in only Iowa, then only Biden and Sanders get delegates.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Firstly, you arrive in a poorly heated church hall. There are between 10 and 200 of your fellow caucus goers in the precinct. Then you listen to speeches by the candidates representatives for something between five minutes and an hour and a half. Not every candidate will have a representative in every precinct. Some of the smallest rural ones will have no candidates' representatives at all. Some of the big ones will have six or seven.
Secondly (if you can survive the tedium of listening to a 19-year sociology student from Rhode Island explain a second tier candidate's health care plan), the hall divides into groups for each candidate. Only groups which get the 15% threshold count. So, there's a whole bunch of encouraging at this point. If the threshold is 25 people in your precinct and there are 14 Klobuchar voters... well, they'll probably have to find a new home.
Eventually this comes to an end, and precincts report in to their county, which reports into the Democrat HQ in Des Moines.
So, two things really matter (on top of your base support):
(1) How transfer friendly are you? At least 20% of caucus goers will be supporting candidates who are unviable (and it might be as much as 35% or more in some places).
(2) How well organised are you? Do you have volunteers in every church hall and community centre. Do they have well rehearsed talking points tailored to why a Yang voter should vote Sanders?
And, of course, people in St Swithin's Hall in one part of Iowa have no idea what's happening in another. So, you might see Warren voters going for Sanders in Rapid City, but Sanders ones opting for Warren in Sioux Falls.
It's a complicated picture. Biden, for example, is leading in the Iowa polls. But he has fewer volunteers and field offices than Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren or Klobuchar.
And people can regroup to try and avoid a less favoured candidate winning. I have little doubt that if Bloomberg were on the ballot (he's not), then you would see Warren voters going Sanders (or vice-versa) to prevent him winning.
Put it together, and I see this being a very tight contest. I could see any of the top five winning.
RLB: Continuity Corbyn. Starmer: Very left on social issues, moderate on economics but pretending not to be. Nandy: Reasonably far left on economics, centrist on social issues.
The choice between Starmer and Nandy is effectively whether you go for the middle class or working class votes respectively.
My take on your analysis:
RLB: "Continuity Corbyn" - from what I've seen, this is a reasonable shorthand, although she is her own person so I avoid the term (some argue it is gendered).
Starmer: I don't know what evidence there is that he is economically right of where he says he is? Arguably, his record as director of public prosecutions is evidence that he would be a bit more centrist on crime.
Nandy: I agree that she is economically left. She has her own approach (e.g. localising rather than nationalising energy) but it is not any less left-wing, just less centralising. Socially she is also left, but her willingness to engage constructively with people who are not is being spun by some as centrism, which really irritates me.
The middle- versus working-class votes thing: I think you are right that many people will make their decision in this way. It's unfortunate though.
" "Continuity Corbyn" - from what I've seen, this is a reasonable shorthand, although she is her own person so I avoid the term (some argue it is gendered)."
Who are these "some"? And what are they on about? They are destroying the language in the cause of taking offence.
Oh dear it appears the tw@tterati left are losing their shit because the bloke who has the #1 listened to podcast in the world said he will probably vote Bernie Sanders and Sanders campaign are going to use that in an advert...and their outrage is because said podcast occasionally (probably about 10 really right wing people) in nearly 1500 episodes.
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
My opinion has always been that the prophets predicting the end of the world stuff are wrong, but it doesn't mean that it won't be very challenging.
We are all most certain to swap one load of red tape for another set, if that turns out to be better, worse or the same but for different reasons , we won't know for 20-30 years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, underlying all of this is that there is a mutual benefits for the UK and EU to continue to trade and ultimately that will drive towards a fudge that the UK can say we have left and the EU can say see we punished them for leaving.
The UK does have a big advantage that we a stable society, (at least in the short term) avoided the threat of mad far leftist anti-business types running the country, top class universities, and strong enforcement of laws. All of which makes the UK an attractive place to invest in.
I think in 25 years we will probably bemoaning many aspects of various trade deals we have signed up to, while still being a leading world economy (albeit China being the dominant power rather than US or EU).
One thing I am certain of is if we had stayed a vote for Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. If we had remained, 25 years down the line, it would be ever closer union / alignment etc. Now that might be advantageous against the might of China, or it might hamper those trying to be nimble to an even more globalized world economy.
If Brexit turns out OK everyone will have supported it all along, with the FT and Economist leading the charge.
Wishful thinking. Brexit being merely OK (ie. not a total disaster) will not be enough to convince millions of people that we made the right decision. It has become a totemic issue and there is not a hint of evidence that the remain half of the country is warming to the idea.
The key will be whether the new Tory voters in Labour's old "red wall" feel they have benefitted from Brexit and I wouldn't hold my breath on that becoming true. I think the best they can hope for is that things won't be much worse.
Oh dear it appears the tw@tterati left are losing their shit because the bloke who has the #1 listened to podcast in the world said he will probably vote Bernie Sanders and Sanders campaign are going to use that in an advert...and their outrage is because said podcast occasionally (probably about 10 really right wing people) in nearly 1500 episodes.
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
My opinion has always been that the prophets predicting the end of the world stuff are wrong, but it doesn't mean that it won't be very challenging.
We are all most certain to swap one load of red tape for another set, if that turns out to be better, worse or the same but for different reasons , we won't know for 20-30 years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, underlying all of this is that there is a mutual benefits for the UK and EU to continue to trade and ultimately that will drive towards a fudge that the UK can say we have left and the EU can say see we punished them for leaving.
The UK does have a big advantage that we a stable society, (at least in the short term) avoided the threat of mad far leftist anti-business types running the country, top class universities, and strong enforcement of laws. All of which makes the UK an attractive place to invest in.
I think in 25 years we will probably bemoaning many aspects of various trade deals we have signed up to, while still being a leading world economy (albeit China being the dominant power rather than US or EU).
One thing I am certain of is if we had stayed a vote for Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. If we had remained, 25 years down the line, it would be ever closer union / alignment etc. Now that might be advantageous against the might of China, or it might hamper those trying to be nimble to an even more globalized world economy.
If Brexit turns out OK everyone will have supported it all along, with the FT and Economist leading the charge.
Of course, and if it doesn't work, then it will have been because it was the wrong Brexit.
You can't expect people - of any persuasion - to change their opinions in response to actual evidence.
Oh dear it appears the tw@tterati left are losing their shit because the bloke who has the #1 listened to podcast in the world said he will probably vote Bernie Sanders and Sanders campaign are going to use that in an advert...and their outrage is because said podcast occasionally (probably about 10 really right wing people) in nearly 1500 episodes.
Firstly, you arrive in a poorly heated church hall. There are between 10 and 200 of your fellow caucus goers in the precinct. Then you listen to speeches by the candidates representatives for something between five minutes and an hour and a half. Not every candidate will have a representative in every precinct. Some of the smallest rural ones will have no candidates' representatives at all. Some of the big ones will have six or seven.
Secondly (if you can survive the tedium of listening to a 19-year sociology student from Rhode Island explain a second tier candidate's health care plan), the hall divides into groups for each candidate. Only groups which get the 15% threshold count. So, there's a whole bunch of encouraging at this point. If the threshold is 25 people in your precinct and there are 14 Klobuchar voters... well, they'll probably have to find a new home.
So, two things really matter (on top of your base support):
(1) How transfer friendly are you? At least 20% of caucus goers will be supporting candidates who are unviable (and it might be as much as 35% or more in some places).
(2) How well organised are you? Do you have volunteers in every church hall and community centre. Do they have well rehearsed talking points tailored to why a Yang voter should vote Sanders?
And, of course, people in St Swithin's Hall in one part of Iowa have no idea what's happening in another. So, you might see Warren voters going for Sanders in Rapid City, but Sanders ones opting for Warren in Sioux Falls.
It's a complicated picture. Biden, for example, is leading in the Iowa polls. But he has fewer volunteers and field offices than Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren or Klobuchar.
And people can regroup to try and avoid a less favoured candidate winning. I have little doubt that if Bloomberg were on the ballot (he's not), then you would see Warren voters going Sanders (or vice-versa) to prevent him winning.
Put it together, and I see this being a very tight contest. I could see any of the top five winning.
Overall good account of the prosses in Iowa but one miner technical correction, you don't have to be 'on the ballot in Iowa, people can Caucasus for whoever they want. unlike in the 3 other early states where Bloomberg is not on the ballot.
Now Blumburge is not organizing in the state and correctly stated he is not on the ballot in any of the early 4 states, thus is is both unlikely to get any delegates in the state and is playing down the possibility so that when he does not, it will not damage him to much.
but technically caucuses goers, could spontaneously gather for him on the night and if that happen across the state he could get votes.
Wishful thinking. Brexit being merely OK (ie. not a total disaster) will not be enough to convince millions of people that we made the right decision. It has become a totemic issue and there is not a hint of evidence that the remain half of the country is warming to the idea.
The key will be whether the new Tory voters in Labour's old "red wall" feel they have benefitted from Brexit and I wouldn't hold my breath on that becoming true. I think the best they can hope for is that things won't be much worse.
It is a totemic issue solely because we're still debating it and it hasn't happened yet.
Once its happened and is history that's another matter.
If Brexit turns out OK everyone will have supported it all along, with the FT and Economist leading the charge.
Of course, and if it doesn't work, then it will have been because it was the wrong Brexit.
You can't expect people - of any persuasion - to change their opinions in response to actual evidence.
It's far more than that, people on either side tend to have very different metrics of what Brexit being a "success" means. As far as I'm concerned the discussion about GDP for instance is entirely irrelevant; success is the degree to which we still remain attached to the EU project. A Remainiac wittering on about baloney predictions of future GDP growth is not going to ever convince me they are right, not just because the "facts" are nonsense but because it's not the value being considered.
We are lucky to have objective arbiters such as Goodwin to tell us who the thinking thinkers are.
I don't know what an 'objective arbiter' would look like in the circus of political comment, and I fear the concept has no meaning, but in Matthew Goodwin at least there is a clear, intelligent, thoughtful academic prepared to think and predict in the public space. The left too is not short of interesting and thoughtful contributions, and Goodwin is right in his anxiety that this should not be kept a closely guarded secret.
When everyone else in the political bubble was ejaculating prematurely about TIG, Goodwin was saying the vacancy was for a party that was socially conservative and economically left... isn’t that what Boris is trying to be?
I hope not. He's being socially conservative on a few areas (ie law and order, but not sexuality) while being economically dry but opening the taps a bit more than they were.
The Tory manifesto was criticised by various "institutes" for not increasing spending enough, while he is being called economically left by others - seems to be a reasonable situation to be in.
Comments
I confess I had to google him to remember why I recognised him.
It seems like 3000 years ago when he was even microscopically famous in the political world. Odd.
It’s conceivable that it could be fine - and equally so that it gets eviscerated.
Other stuff like some farming sectors might be collateral damage, but are not big enough to shift the dial.
The fact these changes may result in people having to fill in forms means that rather than forgetting the promise (re fire stations was made) every day they will be reminded about it.
And that constant reminder won't help things over time.
I also discovered he's married to Breakfast TV presenter Kate Garraway, who I now realise was the slightly Milfy woman next to him at the school....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwell
Corbyn -> 3 RLB, 2 Nandy, 6 Starmer, 2 Thornberry
Burnham -> 2 RLB, 1 Nandy, 9 Starmer, 0 Thornberry
Cooper -> 2 RLB, 2 Nandy, 6 Starmer, 0 Thornberry
Kendall -> 0 RLB, 1 Nandy, 1 Starmer, 0 Thornberry
No nomination -> 0 RLB, 1 Nandy, 11 Starmer, 1 Thornberry
So 2015 nomination is also a poor predictor of 2020 nomination.
Williams & Osaka are eliminated.
Sanders drops one point to 19%
Biden drops six points to 18%
Warren drops two points to 12%
Don't Know is going to win this race by a country mile.
"If I'd realised the bar was so low, I'd have had a go myself...."
https://twitter.com/i/status/1219961902496960515
He would never have been allowed near a school.....
"What sort of shampoo do you use?"
Where are we going as a democracy?
Fox and Piers Morgan in the same confined space there.
Hard not to fantasize in a way that some would find questionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses
In the closed caucuses, candidates must meet a viability threshold of 15 percent within an individual precinct in order to be considered viable, with supporters of non-viable candidates then allowed to transfer their support to one of the remaining viable candidates or merge with another non-viable group in order to become viable. County convention delegates are then awarded proportionally on the basis of the results of the precinct caucuses, with the 41 pledged delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention allocated on the basis of the state delegate equivalents. Of the 41 pledged delegates, between 5 and 8 are allocated to each of the state's 4 congressional districts and another 5 allocated to party leaders and elected officials (PLEO delegates) in addition to 9 at-large pledged delegates....
I think it's fair to say that both times CLPs followed the winner, and in 2015 the order of CLPs followed the overall results for 1-2-3-4 order. They were pretty good for support levels too, for example Burnham barely got more CLPs than Cooper and their final votes was pretty close too. On the other hand Corbyn's clear but no better lead in CLPs in 2015 didn't reflect his overwhelming lead among members; even if you ignore registered supporters he cleared 50% of existing members and the CLPs hardly indicated that.
All good signs for Starmer though, no denying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2015_Labour_Party_leadership_election_(UK)#Constituency_Labour_Parties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2016_Labour_Party_leadership_election_(UK)#Constituency_Labour_Parties
A glaring ommission.
Thus I've got an open mind, and I think most Corbynites and non-Corbynites do too. The old trench warfare has largely ceased at the moment.
Having said that... he kind of brings me round at the end of the clip. I much prefer a culture where people can voice any opinion and bad opinions are deconstructed as being obviously wrong, than a Twitter culture of "OH MY GOD WHAT AN AWFUL TERRIBLE PERSON YOU ARE" which David Schneider exemplifies. Cancel culture just makes everyone angry, go to their tribes and no-one to have the emotional state to reflect on flawed views of their own tribe.
RLB: Continuity Corbyn.
Starmer: Very left on social issues, moderate on economics but pretending not to be.
Nandy: Reasonably far left on economics, centrist on social issues.
The choice between Starmer and Nandy is effectively whether you go for the middle class or working class votes respectively.
But I'd also prefer a culture where ignorance wasn't celebrated with such media attention.
Reasons why Biden will come through in the end:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opinion/joe-biden-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
So unless there is more "Fox on the box" nonsense from him I will not be mentioning him again either on here or anywhere else.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1220729752971022338
RLB: "Continuity Corbyn" - from what I've seen, this is a reasonable shorthand, although she is her own person so I avoid the term (some argue it is gendered).
Starmer: I don't know what evidence there is that he is economically right of where he says he is? Arguably, his record as director of public prosecutions is evidence that he would be a bit more centrist on crime.
Nandy: I agree that she is economically left. She has her own approach (e.g. localising rather than nationalising energy) but it is not any less left-wing, just less centralising. Socially she is also left, but her willingness to engage constructively with people who are not is being spun by some as centrism, which really irritates me.
The middle- versus working-class votes thing: I think you are right that many people will make their decision in this way. It's unfortunate though.
But as just posted my intention is to refrain from getting involved in any further debate that is directly or indirectly about Laurence Fox.
I heard Lionel Barber (ex FT editor) backtracking on the FT's remainery stance on the radio the other day.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7925735/Ben-Stokes-caught-camera-calling-fan-f-four-eyed-c.html
Bants obvs.
If Fox wants to highlight the gratuitous use of'inclusiveness in movies for inclusiveness sake there are much better examples. And his detractors are silly to pretend this phenomenon does not exist, or that minorities are offended by it being pointed out.
https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1220554118034608128
Now you’ve got me worried about my money on Biden.
---
I remember you saying before that you didn't know anyone who was supporting Nandy, and that only two topics were really being discussed (who is left enough? who is capable of winning a general election?).
Did last night indicate a change in mood, or was it just that you were hearing from different people?
But the film franchise is nothing to do with the books anymore. He now just has to be male and British. And even that is just my opinion. You could argue for dropping those 2 requirements as well. I personally would be uneasy with, say, a Mexican Bond (with all that that entails) but I wouldn't be offended if they were to go down that route.
Firstly, you arrive in a poorly heated church hall. There are between 10 and 200 of your fellow caucus goers in the precinct. Then you listen to speeches by the candidates representatives for something between five minutes and an hour and a half. Not every candidate will have a representative in every precinct. Some of the smallest rural ones will have no candidates' representatives at all. Some of the big ones will have six or seven.
Secondly (if you can survive the tedium of listening to a 19-year sociology student from Rhode Island explain a second tier candidate's health care plan), the hall divides into groups for each candidate. Only groups which get the 15% threshold count. So, there's a whole bunch of encouraging at this point. If the threshold is 25 people in your precinct and there are 14 Klobuchar voters... well, they'll probably have to find a new home.
Eventually this comes to an end, and precincts report in to their county, which reports into the Democrat HQ in Des Moines.
So, two things really matter (on top of your base support):
(1) How transfer friendly are you? At least 20% of caucus goers will be supporting candidates who are unviable (and it might be as much as 35% or more in some places).
(2) How well organised are you? Do you have volunteers in every church hall and community centre. Do they have well rehearsed talking points tailored to why a Yang voter should vote Sanders?
And, of course, people in St Swithin's Hall in one part of Iowa have no idea what's happening in another. So, you might see Warren voters going for Sanders in Rapid City, but Sanders ones opting for Warren in Sioux Falls.
It's a complicated picture. Biden, for example, is leading in the Iowa polls. But he has fewer volunteers and field offices than Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren or Klobuchar.
And people can regroup to try and avoid a less favoured candidate winning. I have little doubt that if Bloomberg were on the ballot (he's not), then you would see Warren voters going Sanders (or vice-versa) to prevent him winning.
Put it together, and I see this being a very tight contest. I could see any of the top five winning.
Who are these "some"? And what are they on about? They are destroying the language in the cause of taking offence.
The key will be whether the new Tory voters in Labour's old "red wall" feel they have benefitted from Brexit and I wouldn't hold my breath on that becoming true. I think the best they can hope for is that things won't be much worse.
Unless it was a small child?
You can't expect people - of any persuasion - to change their opinions in response to actual evidence.
Writing some shit on the net though?
Now Blumburge is not organizing in the state and correctly stated he is not on the ballot in any of the early 4 states, thus is is both unlikely to get any delegates in the state and is playing down the possibility so that when he does not, it will not damage him to much.
but technically caucuses goers, could spontaneously gather for him on the night and if that happen across the state he could get votes.
Once its happened and is history that's another matter.
The Tory manifesto was criticised by various "institutes" for not increasing spending enough, while he is being called economically left by others - seems to be a reasonable situation to be in.
https://twitter.com/FigandPen/status/1220725815635337225?s=20
You probably don't have to worry about any concomitant increase in swift action from the UK government.