Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
But the underlying issue hasn't gone away. For any party.
Indeed and it's going to come back in a big way as local authority budgets continue to be squeezed. There are proposals, I gather, in the pipeline for the autumn but the Devil will doubtless be in the detail.
I think it will pretty much be the centrepiece of the next budget. Another huge boost in expenditure for Hunt's expanded department.
We did warn TSE that wearing the full Liverpool kit to the game last night might not be a good idea...
Families are left terrified as brawl breaks out in stands at the Man City-Liverpool match when a Reds fan among the home fans celebrates his team scoring
Currently, the EU are trying to pass barmy legislation ('anti terror', apparently - though what printed books from 1767 have to do with terror funding, no-one seems to be able to say) that could cripple the entire antiques industry.
Your move.
Instead of shamelessly indulging in speculative whataboutery you could try responding to the detailed, calm and poignant points made in the blog, by someone who epitomises everything your party used to stand for - free enterprise, hard work and self sacrifice.
The Tory brand will never recover from the damage done by Brexit.
Why do you think that? The Conservative Party has been around for a long time, and has done many controversial things, and yet still has millions of people voting for it. The idea that Brexit is somehow unique is a little odd.
Having said that, no party has a right to exist as a force, which the liberals learnt in the early decades of the last century. But that applies to Labour as much as the Conservatives.
The fact you ask that question suggests you didn’t read the blog.
The fact you said that suggests you don't have an answer.
Since 2016, a number of high profile ‘Revocateurs’, among them Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and Andrew Adonis, have appealed for a fresh referendum on the EU in Britain. Leaving aside the complex practicalities and politics of the ‘neverendum’ idea, Oliver Daddow (University of Nottingham) argues there is no evidence either that Revocateurs were the victims in Act One of the ‘Britain and Europe’ story, or that they possess the credibility to play the heroes of Act Two. Revocateurs need to have more regard for history as it happened, not as they choose to rewrite it now.
For those who think Mrs May can improve her campaigning skills for the next election all I have to say to you is Proverbs 26:11
She has a choice she can either go of her own volition before the next election or the Parliamentary party will force her out.
Mrs May won the highest Tory voteshare since Thatcher at the 2017 general election, Thatcher only went after her poll ratings headed South and May will be the same
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
She won Mansfield and Copeland. A real landslide wasn't quite as far out as you are suggesting.
She also lost Kensington and Canterbury - even Balfour held Canterbury although (buffs nails) one rather brilliant poster here suggested it might be vulnerable to Labour given its profile.
That is not the sign of a successful strategy.
Mansfield had a 2015 majority of 5,000, Bolsover of 11,000.
Canterbury was lost because of tuition fees levels and interest rates compared to Corbyn's promise to scrap them which was more Osborne's fault than May's, the Tories won Mansfield and Copeland because of Brexit but lost Kensington because of Brexit
I can't see Canterbury or Kensington coming back next time, because the voting coalitions and demographics are changing.
I think May could have won 340-350 seats with a good campaign on 43-44% of the vote. I don't believe, in hindsight of course, her chances were much higher than that.
There are a number of seats in the midlands and north she should have been able to win, and a few others, like Portsmouth South, Stockton South and High Peak, that she shouldn't have really lost.
You can’t see how the Tories might win back a seat they lost by 30 votes? People said ‘demographics’ were the reason the Tories couldn’t win a majority in 2015. This level of defeatism is not justified.
If the local associations had fought these seats as marginals, they would have been retained. Boundary changes next time will hopefully make it a little easier.
Is it any surprise she doesn’t want to talk to the people who wanted her dead, and damn nearly succeeded? She’ll be staying in a safe house with an armed guard, probably at one of the many military facilities in the Salisbury area, and is probably claiming asylum.
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
She won Mansfield and Copeland. A real landslide wasn't quite as far out as you are suggesting.
She also lost Kensington and Canterbury - even Balfour held Canterbury although (buffs nails) one rather brilliant poster here suggested it might be vulnerable to Labour given its profile.
That is not the sign of a successful strategy.
Mansfield had a 2015 majority of 5,000, Bolsover of 11,000.
Canterbury was lost because of tuition fees levels and interest rates compared to Corbyn's promise to scrap them which was more Osborne's fault than May's, the Tories won Mansfield and Copeland because of Brexit but lost Kensington because of Brexit
I can't see Canterbury or Kensington coming back next time, because the voting coalitions and demographics are changing.
I think May could have won 340-350 seats with a good campaign on 43-44% of the vote. I don't believe, in hindsight of course, her chances were much higher than that.
There are a number of seats in the midlands and north she should have been able to win, and a few others, like Portsmouth South, Stockton South and High Peak, that she shouldn't have really lost.
8 out of 10 of the top Tory target seats voted Leave and if the Tories won them all they would have an overall majority
There's no doubt the response to Salisbury and the drip-drip of anti-Semitism stories has damaged Corbyn. I wasn't that critical of Corbyn's initial response and there are still for me a lot of unanswered questions about the whole affair.
I don't trust any Government and want to see some evidence so being told effectively "it was the Russians, trust us" isn't going to cut any ice with me. It's hard to see frankly who else it could have been but whether this was an actual State-sanctioned attack or a rogue element is open to question. Nonetheless, the responsibility lies at Moscow's door.
As for anti-Semitism, it has deep cultural roots across much of Europe regrettably and as (equally regrettably) the horrific events of the mid 20th Century fade from some memories it has allowed the deeper cultural responses to re-emerge. I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the things I've seen and heard and it depresses me our history is so little taught to and remembered by so many that a genocide of huge proportions within the last century means so little.
In a century replete with appalling acts of inhumanity, the Holocaust has a special place and should always be respected and remembered not just, I would add, for the suffering of the Jews but for the other groups who were systematically murdered in the name of a perverted racist ideology.
Currently, the EU are trying to pass barmy legislation ('anti terror', apparently - though what printed books from 1767 have to do with terror funding, no-one seems to be able to say) that could cripple the entire antiques industry.
Your move.
Instead of shamelessly indulging in speculative whataboutery you could try responding to the detailed, calm and poignant points made in the blog, by someone who epitomises everything your party used to stand for - free enterprise, hard work and self sacrifice.
The Tory brand will never recover from the damage done by Brexit.
Why do you think that? The Conservative Party has been around for a long time, and has done many controversial things, and yet still has millions of people voting for it. The idea that Brexit is somehow unique is a little odd.
Having said that, no party has a right to exist as a force, which the liberals learnt in the early decades of the last century. But that applies to Labour as much as the Conservatives.
The fact you ask that question suggests you didn’t read the blog.
The fact you said that suggests you don't have an answer.
The answer is in the blog. I took it as read.
I think the author is throwing in the towel, prematurely.
We did warn TSE that wearing the full Liverpool kit to the game last night might not be a good idea...
Families are left terrified as brawl breaks out in stands at the Man City-Liverpool match when a Reds fan among the home fans celebrates his team scoring
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
I'm still unconvinced the dementia tax was to blame. The timing does not really fit.
The Tory poll lead halved the week after the manifesto was announced, no party will ever consider making your home liable for personal at home care costs again
Mr. L, Tigranes was called the Great because it was under him that Armenia reached its ancient zenith. And then it was under him they got crushed. Rather May 2017.
Mr. B, actually, I think Mercedes had the smarter strategy generally but they really should've told Bottas to go hell for leather. Vettel would not have lasted another lap (very impressive drive from him).
I can't agree. They bluntly admit that they could and should have won the race. (And it was a very similar error to the one in Australia.)
I actually wonder if a 1-2 might just have been possible had they not kept Hamilton out on his first set of tyres for two or three laps too many, which saw him lose a massive amount of time (having said that, he did hold Vettel up for half a lap or so).
For those who think Mrs May can improve her campaigning skills for the next election all I have to say to you is Proverbs 26:11
She has a choice she can either go of her own volition before the next election or the Parliamentary party will force her out.
"Now's not the time" "Too close to an election" "Not before brexit" "We can't depose the lady who delivered Brexit" "We have a lead over Labour, we can't risk upsetting the apple cart now" "We're behind Labour, she's got us into this mess she'll get us out". "We're too far behind, we can't change leader now" "Brexit is going wrong, noone wants to take over now its a poisoned chalice" "We're 5-10 points ahead, why rock the boat"
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
She won Mansfield and Copeland. A real landslide wasn't quite as far out as you are suggesting.
She also lost Kensington and Canterbury - even Balfour held Canterbury although (buffs nails) one rather brilliant poster here suggested it might be vulnerable to Labour given its profile.
That is not the sign of a successful strategy.
Morning all,
There is a bleak assessment of Tories in this week's Spectator. The article is mainly about London, where changing demographics and attitudes mean the party is close to full panic over prospects this spring.
But it also discusses wider issues e.g. ageing membership, reluctance to canvas in the way that young Corbynites do, split between urban views and the Shire Tories represented by May.
The Tories can win a majority without winning London as they did in 2015, there are plenty of young Tories who can canvass in key marginals even if the older members just do telling
For those who think Mrs May can improve her campaigning skills for the next election all I have to say to you is Proverbs 26:11
She has a choice she can either go of her own volition before the next election or the Parliamentary party will force her out.
"Now's not the time" "Too close to an election" "Not before brexit" "We can't depose the lady who delivered Brexit" "We have a lead over Labour, we can't risk upsetting the apple cart now" "We're behind Labour, she's got us into this mess she'll get us out". "We're too far behind, we can't change leader now" "Brexit is going wrong, noone wants to take over now its a poisoned chalice" "We're 5-10 points ahead, why rock the boat"
Because we were 25% ahead at the last election then she soiled the bed.
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
I'm still unconvinced the dementia tax was to blame. The timing does not really fit.
The Tory poll lead halved the week after the manifesto was announced, no party will ever consider making your home liable for personal at home care costs again
But it is already and the Tories proposed a small change that improved the residual estate!
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
I'm still unconvinced the dementia tax was to blame. The timing does not really fit.
The Tory poll lead halved the week after the manifesto was announced, no party will ever consider making your home liable for personal at home care costs again
But it is already and the Tories proposed a small change that improved the residual estate!
No it isn't, the home is only liable for residential care costs which only a minority have, it is exempt for personal at home care costs
There's no doubt the response to Salisbury and the drip-drip of anti-Semitism stories has damaged Corbyn. I wasn't that critical of Corbyn's initial response and there are still for me a lot of unanswered questions about the whole affair.
I don't trust any Government and want to see some evidence so being told effectively "it was the Russians, trust us" isn't going to cut any ice with me. It's hard to see frankly who else it could have been but whether this was an actual State-sanctioned attack or a rogue element is open to question. Nonetheless, the responsibility lies at Moscow's door.
As for anti-Semitism, it has deep cultural roots across much of Europe regrettably and as (equally regrettably) the horrific events of the mid 20th Century fade from some memories it has allowed the deeper cultural responses to re-emerge. I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the things I've seen and heard and it depresses me our history is so little taught to and remembered by so many that a genocide of huge proportions within the last century means so little.
In a century replete with appalling acts of inhumanity, the Holocaust has a special place and should always be respected and remembered not just, I would add, for the suffering of the Jews but for the other groups who were systematically murdered in the name of a perverted racist ideology.
I thought about the only guarantee in the history syllabus was the Holocaust?
Why have we gone all American and put the months before the date?
Other than that moan a very interesting chart. The swing from 29th May (+9) to 11th June (-32) is particularly marked and I cannot recall such volatility in these type of scores before. Message number one: if you are expecting the British people to elect you their PM you really had better go and speak to them.
Indeed. The next election campaign won't be fought in warehouses in front of a handful of the party faithful.
If Tessy is still around it might be. Her recent whistle stop tour of the four nations of her 'precious, precious union' was like a concentrated stock cube of the whole inept, control freak GE car crash.
Currently, the EU are trying to pass barmy legislation ('anti terror', apparently - though what printed books from 1767 have to do with terror funding, no-one seems to be able to say) that could cripple the entire antiques industry.
Your move.
Instead of shamelessly indulging in speculative whataboutery you could try responding to the detailed, calm and poignant points made in the blog, by someone who epitomises everything your party used to stand for - free enterprise, hard work and self sacrifice.
The Tory brand will never recover from the damage done by Brexit.
I think a business that depends on shipping relatively small consignments will be hit by Brexit. Her consignments vary in value but average £400. I can imagine additional costs per consignment of £15 for customs processing, £5 extra courier cost, £10 in staff and financing costs for the new paperwork and delays, for a total of £30 average additional cost per shipment post Brexit. This assumes an FTA, but not remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market, where the bureaucracy costs would be lower. Many businesses don't have a 7% margin they can give away. It would make the difference of whether they stay in business.
The other point she makes about the effect of leaving the EU on her business, apart from the direct costs of the additional red tape, is that there is no substitute for the European Union as a market. On its own the United Kingdom is too small a market; other developed countries (Australia etc) too fragmented; developing countries (China etc) too unreliable and difficult to deal with. Whereas the European Union market is coherent and easy to deal with.
Currently, the EU are trying to pass barmy legislation ('anti terror', apparently - though what printed books from 1767 have to do with terror funding, no-one seems to be able to say) that could cripple the entire antiques industry.
Your move.
Instead of shamelessly indulging in speculative whataboutery you could try responding to the detailed, calm and poignant points made in the blog, by someone who epitomises everything your party used to stand for - free enterprise, hard work and self sacrifice.
The Tory brand will never recover from the damage done by Brexit.
Why do you think that? The Conservative Party has been around for a long time, and has done many controversial things, and yet still has millions of people voting for it. The idea that Brexit is somehow unique is a little odd.
Having said that, no party has a right to exist as a force, which the liberals learnt in the early decades of the last century. But that applies to Labour as much as the Conservatives.
The fact you ask that question suggests you didn’t read the blog.
The fact you said that suggests you don't have an answer.
The answer is in the blog. I took it as read.
There is a big disconnect and a massive bucket of wishful thinking between the situation described in the blog and your claim: "The Tory brand will never recover from the damage done by Brexit."
I wouldn't put Jezza's personal popularity plummet down to anti-Semitism. That may be a slight factor but more tellingly is his unblinking support for Russia.
Has Mrs May abducted Yulia Skripal, Mr Corbyn? That's what the Russians are saying, so it must be true. Should we launch an enquiry into it?, When Jeremy stretches reasonable doubt to extraordinary lengths, the suspicion grow that he's away with the fairies.
The public are getting increasing visibility of what a Corbyn government might look like. In addition there was a substantial protest element to the 2017 GE result. Corbyn is going to lose.
The more interesting question is where, when that happens, it will leave the Labour moderates who will have looked uncomfortably compromised and Vichy-like....
On topic - Labour should be sh1tting themselves. May is only able to reverse favourability by being in power. It is noticeable that the relentless anti-Brexit coverage has faded significantly and has coincided with the upturn.
As for Corbyn - in opposition, once you are done you are done. He's on a one way ticket to the election night drinks party with Ed, Gordon, Neil and Michael Foot.
Why have we gone all American and put the months before the date?
Other than that moan a very interesting chart. The swing from 29th May (+9) to 11th June (-32) is particularly marked and I cannot recall such volatility in these type of scores before. Message number one: if you are expecting the British people to elect you their PM you really had better go and speak to them.
Indeed. The next election campaign won't be fought in warehouses in front of a handful of the party faithful.
If Tessy is still around it might be. Her recent whistle stop tour of the four nations of her 'precious, precious union' was like a concentrated stock cube of the whole inept, control freak GE car crash.
Agreed. There was very little evidence of lessons having been learned there.
There's no doubt the response to Salisbury and the drip-drip of anti-Semitism stories has damaged Corbyn. I wasn't that critical of Corbyn's initial response and there are still for me a lot of unanswered questions about the whole affair.
I don't trust any Government and want to see some evidence so being told effectively "it was the Russians, trust us" isn't going to cut any ice with me. It's hard to see frankly who else it could have been but whether this was an actual State-sanctioned attack or a rogue element is open to question. Nonetheless, the responsibility lies at Moscow's door.
As for anti-Semitism, it has deep cultural roots across much of Europe regrettably and as (equally regrettably) the horrific events of the mid 20th Century fade from some memories it has allowed the deeper cultural responses to re-emerge. I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the things I've seen and heard and it depresses me our history is so little taught to and remembered by so many that a genocide of huge proportions within the last century means so little.
In a century replete with appalling acts of inhumanity, the Holocaust has a special place and should always be respected and remembered not just, I would add, for the suffering of the Jews but for the other groups who were systematically murdered in the name of a perverted racist ideology.
I thought about the only guarantee in the history syllabus was the Holocaust?
Depends what school you're in. In a maintained school, yes, in theory, in some other schools possibly not. Even in maintained schools with the rise of three year GCSEs it's not always observed properly.
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
I'm still unconvinced the dementia tax was to blame. The timing does not really fit.
The Tory poll lead halved the week after the manifesto was announced, no party will ever consider making your home liable for personal at home care costs again
But it is already and the Tories proposed a small change that improved the residual estate!
The policy itself was sound, and a welcome sight to see someone try and address an issue that had been on the too-difficult list for many years.
The issue was that it was immediately defined perjoratively by political opponents, and no-one wanted to defend it from the Conservative side. We should have had every available minister all over the TV for those first three days, debating it and selling it.
Why have we gone all American and put the months before the date?
Other than that moan a very interesting chart. The swing from 29th May (+9) to 11th June (-32) is particularly marked and I cannot recall such volatility in these type of scores before. Message number one: if you are expecting the British people to elect you their PM you really had better go and speak to them.
Indeed. The next election campaign won't be fought in warehouses in front of a handful of the party faithful.
If Tessy is still around it might be. Her recent whistle stop tour of the four nations of her 'precious, precious union' was like a concentrated stock cube of the whole inept, control freak GE car crash.
How's Nicla's jolly to China going ? Seems to have coincided with the Nat teenagers having a nat cat fight.
For those who think Mrs May can improve her campaigning skills for the next election all I have to say to you is Proverbs 26:11
She has a choice she can either go of her own volition before the next election or the Parliamentary party will force her out.
"Now's not the time" "Too close to an election" "Not before brexit" "We can't depose the lady who delivered Brexit" "We have a lead over Labour, we can't risk upsetting the apple cart now" "We're behind Labour, she's got us into this mess she'll get us out". "We're too far behind, we can't change leader now" "Brexit is going wrong, noone wants to take over now its a poisoned chalice" "We're 5-10 points ahead, why rock the boat"
Because we were 25% ahead at the last election then she soiled the bed.
The last election demonstrated that supposedly uber-smart political movers and shakers surrounding Mrs. May actually had the political acumen of the slugs in my garden.....
Where were the people in the Tory campaign standing up and shouting at the top of their lungs "You want to do the fuck WHAT?????" That incredulity should have covered:
a) holding the election at all b) holding the election separate from the locals c) the content of the manifesto d) the debates e) the election materials f) a whole load of stuff I've probably forgotten but spiked my blood pressure forty points at the time.
I wouldn't worry about London politically. Once you get past Bedford, the rest of the country regards them as loons anyway. More than £150k for a semi? That says it all.
There's no doubt the response to Salisbury and the drip-drip of anti-Semitism stories has damaged Corbyn. I wasn't that critical of Corbyn's initial response and there are still for me a lot of unanswered questions about the whole affair.
I don't trust any Government and want to see some evidence so being told effectively "it was the Russians, trust us" isn't going to cut any ice with me. It's hard to see frankly who else it could have been but whether this was an actual State-sanctioned attack or a rogue element is open to question. Nonetheless, the responsibility lies at Moscow's door.
As for anti-Semitism, it has deep cultural roots across much of Europe regrettably and as (equally regrettably) the horrific events of the mid 20th Century fade from some memories it has allowed the deeper cultural responses to re-emerge. I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the things I've seen and heard and it depresses me our history is so little taught to and remembered by so many that a genocide of huge proportions within the last century means so little.
In a century replete with appalling acts of inhumanity, the Holocaust has a special place and should always be respected and remembered not just, I would add, for the suffering of the Jews but for the other groups who were systematically murdered in the name of a perverted racist ideology.
I thought about the only guarantee in the history syllabus was the Holocaust?
Depends what school you're in. In a maintained school, yes, in theory, in some other schools possibly not. Even in maintained schools with the rise of three year GCSEs it's not always observed properly.
That's pretty damning - and worthy of being raised at a PMQs.
I wouldn't worry about London politically. Once you get past Bedford, the rest of the country regards them as loons anyway. More than £150k for a semi? That says it all.
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
I'm still unconvinced the dementia tax was to blame. The timing does not really fit.
The Tory poll lead halved the week after the manifesto was announced, no party will ever consider making your home liable for personal at home care costs again
But it is already and the Tories proposed a small change that improved the residual estate!
The policy itself was sound, and a welcome sight to see someone try and address an issue that had been on the too-difficult list for many years.
The issue was that it was immediately defined perjoratively by political opponents, and no-one wanted to defend it from the Conservative side. We should have had every available minister all over the TV for those first three days, debating it and selling it.
Exactly. So the problem wasn't the policy, it was May's incompetence as a campaigner. Which she could easily repeat at another election.
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
I'm still unconvinced the dementia tax was to blame. The timing does not really fit.
The Tory poll lead halved the week after the manifesto was announced, no party will ever consider making your home liable for personal at home care costs again
But it is already and the Tories proposed a small change that improved the residual estate!
The policy itself was sound, and a welcome sight to see someone try and address an issue that had been on the too-difficult list for many years.
The issue was that it was immediately defined perjoratively by political opponents, and no-one wanted to defend it from the Conservative side. We should have had every available minister all over the TV for those first three days, debating it and selling it.
More importantly, signal it *before* the campaign, and especially the problem you are trying to solve. As it was, it just dropped out of nowhere.
I do wonder if it was something that was being worked on ready for the next GE, and when it was called early, the policy was suddenly pulled out of the bag well-formed but poorly briefed.
Now Mrs May has a lead both in terms of favourability and voting intention over Corbyn what is the need to replace her?
If we could have an 84 point turnaround in five months last year it can happen again.
That's your reason.
Except we didn't.
You're right. My mistake.
It was in four months.
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
I'm still unconvinced the dementia tax was to blame. The timing does not really fit.
The Tory poll lead halved the week after the manifesto was announced, no party will ever consider making your home liable for personal at home care costs again
But it is already and the Tories proposed a small change that improved the residual estate!
The policy itself was sound, and a welcome sight to see someone try and address an issue that had been on the too-difficult list for many years.
The issue was that it was immediately defined perjoratively by political opponents, and no-one wanted to defend it from the Conservative side. We should have had every available minister all over the TV for those first three days, debating it and selling it.
No the policy itself was crap, without doubt the worst Tory policy in years, without that policy May would have won a majority even if not a landslide. Almost all the net movement from Tory to Labour during the campaign came after that announcement which undermined the net benefit of Osborne's previous inheritance tax cut.
I as a Tory could not in my heart defend it and it will certainly never be considered again
There's no doubt the response to Salisbury and the drip-drip of anti-Semitism stories has damaged Corbyn. I wasn't that critical of Corbyn's initial response and there are still for me a lot of unanswered questions about the whole affair.
I don't trust any Government and want to see some evidence so being told effectively "it was the Russians, trust us" isn't going to cut any ice with me. It's hard to see frankly who else it could have been but whether this was an actual State-sanctioned attack or a rogue element is open to question. Nonetheless, the responsibility lies at Moscow's door.
As for anti-Semitism, it has deep cultural roots across much of Europe regrettably and as (equally regrettably) the horrific events of the mid 20th Century fade from some memories it has allowed the deeper cultural responses to re-emerge. I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the things I've seen and heard and it depresses me our history is so little taught to and remembered by so many that a genocide of huge proportions within the last century means so little.
In a century replete with appalling acts of inhumanity, the Holocaust has a special place and should always be respected and remembered not just, I would add, for the suffering of the Jews but for the other groups who were systematically murdered in the name of a perverted racist ideology.
I thought about the only guarantee in the history syllabus was the Holocaust?
But that in itself flags up part of the problem: it is history now in a way that it wasn't 20 or 30 years ago. Yes, there are still a few survivors of the death camps and still the odd person who worked in one of then being prosecuted for having the temerity to live to an extremely old age (and let's be honest - that is the reason: there'd have been hundreds of thousands of prosecutions in the 1940s and 1950s if the bar for criminal action was as low as it is now).
But overall, the Holocaust has slipped from a human collective memory to an event in history, which like slavery or empires happened in a different time when people acted and thought differently.
Those assumptions are, of course, wrong. But they're comforting all the same and the ignorance that comes from a lack of direct contact is sufficient to maintain them.
Why have we gone all American and put the months before the date?
Other than that moan a very interesting chart. The swing from 29th May (+9) to 11th June (-32) is particularly marked and I cannot recall such volatility in these type of scores before. Message number one: if you are expecting the British people to elect you their PM you really had better go and speak to them.
Indeed. The next election campaign won't be fought in warehouses in front of a handful of the party faithful.
If Tessy is still around it might be. Her recent whistle stop tour of the four nations of her 'precious, precious union' was like a concentrated stock cube of the whole inept, control freak GE car crash.
May of course did win a large number of seats off the SNP at the GE, so it did bolster the Union on that score
There's no doubt the response to Salisbury and the drip-drip of anti-Semitism stories has damaged Corbyn. I wasn't that critical of Corbyn's initial response and there are still for me a lot of unanswered questions about the whole affair.
I don't trust any Government and want to see some evidence so being told effectively "it was the Russians, trust us" isn't going to cut any ice with me. It's hard to see frankly who else it could have been but whether this was an actual State-sanctioned attack or a rogue element is open to question. Nonetheless, the responsibility lies at Moscow's door.
As for anti-Semitism, it has deep cultural roots across much of Europe regrettably and as (equally regrettably) the horrific events of the mid 20th Century fade from some memories it has allowed the deeper cultural responses to re-emerge. I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the things I've seen and heard and it depresses me our history is so little taught to and remembered by so many that a genocide of huge proportions within the last century means so little.
In a century replete with appalling acts of inhumanity, the Holocaust has a special place and should always be respected and remembered not just, I would add, for the suffering of the Jews but for the other groups who were systematically murdered in the name of a perverted racist ideology.
I thought about the only guarantee in the history syllabus was the Holocaust?
Depends what school you're in. In a maintained school, yes, in theory, in some other schools possibly not. Even in maintained schools with the rise of three year GCSEs it's not always observed properly.
That's pretty damning - and worthy of being raised at a PMQs.
That's nothing. My son's (private) school is the only school left in Dundee that teaches economics. Some have suggested that this is long term preparation for Indyref2 but they still teach arithmetic, after a fashion.
I thought about the only guarantee in the history syllabus was the Holocaust?
It's a very long time since I was at school. I don't know how it is taught now but to be honest I remember seeing the "World at War" episode on it from the 1960s and, perhaps because it was in monochrome, it was chilling in extremis with Lawrence Olivier's narration adding to the depressing frightening tone.
It naturally left out a huge amount and it was some time before I knew of the efforts of individuals and diplomats and actions such as the Kindertransport or the rescue of the Danish Jews which, while only doing a little, showed some lights of humanity in the darkness.
I don't know how it is taught now - clearly for some it has little or no impact.
Why have we gone all American and put the months before the date?
Other than that moan a very interesting chart. The swing from 29th May (+9) to 11th June (-32) is particularly marked and I cannot recall such volatility in these type of scores before. Message number one: if you are expecting the British people to elect you their PM you really had better go and speak to them.
Indeed. The next election campaign won't be fought in warehouses in front of a handful of the party faithful.
If Tessy is still around it might be. Her recent whistle stop tour of the four nations of her 'precious, precious union' was like a concentrated stock cube of the whole inept, control freak GE car crash.
May of course did win a large number of seats off the SNP at the GE, so it did bolster the Union on that score
I think credit for that lies more appropriately with Ruth.....
On topic - Labour should be sh1tting themselves. May is only able to reverse favourability by being in power. It is noticeable that the relentless anti-Brexit coverage has faded significantly and has coincided with the upturn.
As for Corbyn - in opposition, once you are done you are done. He's on a one way ticket to the election night drinks party with Ed, Gordon, Neil and Michael Foot.
Corbyn is probably toast. The question is are the Labour moderates going to be so compromised by inaction and cowardice in the interim that (electorally speaking) they go down with him
Why have we gone all American and put the months before the date?
Other than that moan a very interesting chart. The swing from 29th May (+9) to 11th June (-32) is particularly marked and I cannot recall such volatility in these type of scores before. Message number one: if you are expecting the British people to elect you their PM you really had better go and speak to them.
Indeed. The next election campaign won't be fought in warehouses in front of a handful of the party faithful.
If Tessy is still around it might be. Her recent whistle stop tour of the four nations of her 'precious, precious union' was like a concentrated stock cube of the whole inept, control freak GE car crash.
How's Nicla's jolly to China going ? Seems to have coincided with the Nat teenagers having a nat cat fight.
As well as the one to Germany when 'a meeting with the German Foreign Ministry' turned out to be 'lunch at a local restaurant with a mid-ranking official'?
Depends what school you're in. In a maintained school, yes, in theory, in some other schools possibly not. Even in maintained schools with the rise of three year GCSEs it's not always observed properly.
That's pretty damning - and worthy of being raised at a PMQs.
Perhaps I should clarify a bit. It is legally required that all schools should teach about the Holocaust in some way, shape or form. I think that even applies to independent schools. Exactly how they teach it is however more flexible. For example, in my school this year we took it out of the History syllabus (which was fearsomely cramped) and put it in RS. This was little more than an administrative change from our point of view because as it happens all four people who teach History also teach RS, and although I don't have the title I also act as Head of RS. It's worked very well and allowed us to lead into other issues surrounding race/racism and religious violence. More pertinently, while we are observing the spirit rather than the letter of the curriculum, outside the maintained sector oversight is rather differently managed so there isn't always a check to see it is being taught at all.
What worries me is that due to those time constraints I mentioned above a large number of schools seem to be putting it into English and via the medium of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. Neither strike me as appropriate. English teachers are trained in textual criticism not ethical considerations, and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is shit - as literature and history. That is where problems can occur. Others seem to be taking it down the PSHE route. I have to wonder whether such a complex issue is best handled by teachers picked for their unlikeliness to be embarrassed when talking about sex to teenagers (and as a result is dominated by PE and Biology teachers who very seldom have training in history or philosophy).
That said, if you want a real brewing scandal that could be a serious matter for the government, you might want to wonder how it is that although GCSE exams start one month on Saturday due to an elementary cockup by OFQUAL and the DfES we still don't have definitive marking criteria for the new History GCSE.
For those who think Mrs May can improve her campaigning skills for the next election all I have to say to you is Proverbs 26:11
She has a choice she can either go of her own volition before the next election or the Parliamentary party will force her out.
"Now's not the time" "Too close to an election" "Not before brexit" "We can't depose the lady who delivered Brexit" "We have a lead over Labour, we can't risk upsetting the apple cart now" "We're behind Labour, she's got us into this mess she'll get us out". "We're too far behind, we can't change leader now" "Brexit is going wrong, noone wants to take over now its a poisoned chalice" "We're 5-10 points ahead, why rock the boat"
Because we were 25% ahead at the last election then she soiled the bed.
The last election demonstrated that supposedly uber-smart political movers and shakers surrounding Mrs. May actually had the political acumen of the slugs in my garden.....
Where were the people in the Tory campaign standing up and shouting at the top of their lungs "You want to do the fuck WHAT?????" That incredulity should have covered:
a) holding the election at all b) holding the election separate from the locals c) the content of the manifesto d) the debates e) the election materials f) a whole load of stuff I've probably forgotten but spiked my blood pressure forty points at the time.
Look on the bright side, the guy who persuaded her to hold an early election is in charge of Brexit.
That said the hubris of that prick Nick Timothy telling people ‘It took Dave and George years to change the party and country, I did it in weeks’ still makes me think he is worse than Mark ‘Pigdog’ Reckless
On topic - Labour should be sh1tting themselves. May is only able to reverse favourability by being in power. It is noticeable that the relentless anti-Brexit coverage has faded significantly and has coincided with the upturn.
As for Corbyn - in opposition, once you are done you are done. He's on a one way ticket to the election night drinks party with Ed, Gordon, Neil and Michael Foot.
Corbyn is probably toast. The question is are the Labour moderates going to be so compromised by inaction and cowardice in the interim that (electorally speaking) they go down with him
Corby will be the slowest toasting in the history of toast. Suspect he will step down in the summer of 2022.
The policy itself was sound, and a welcome sight to see someone try and address an issue that had been on the too-difficult list for many years.
It wasn't well or thoroughly thought through and unravelled for that reason. It's a huge and complex area and it sounded as though a few Conservatives had a brainstorming session one afternoon with a flip chart and someone had tried to interpret the ramblings.
It is only "too difficult" because the root problem is money and that means someone somewhere will have to pay more in order for care to be better provided.
It sounded as though it was more about providing larger inheritance to children than tackling the core issues about the provision of adult social care and how that should be funded both now and (more importantly given the demographics) in the future.
Announcing it in the middle of an election campaign was incalculably stupid - those who stood to lose out would immediately jump up and down and the policy would look weak. Those who stand to lose will always make more noise than those who stand to gain and that resonates among the undecided in a campaign.
We did warn TSE that wearing the full Liverpool kit to the game last night might not be a good idea...
Families are left terrified as brawl breaks out in stands at the Man City-Liverpool match when a Reds fan among the home fans celebrates his team scoring
How's Nicla's jolly to China going ? Seems to have coincided with the Nat teenagers having a nat cat fight.
As well as the one to Germany when 'a meeting with the German Foreign Ministry' turned out to be 'lunch at a local restaurant with a mid-ranking official'?
Look at the graph, which is what I am talking about.
Yes, May just about clung on. She was expected to win over 400 seats including places like Bolsover and West Bromwich West. That simply didn't happen and the campaign, which drove floating voters to Corbyn, seems to have been a big problem.
The fact she was overconfident and aimed for a landslide and winning seats even Thatcher never won was unrealistic, however she did still win over 60 more seats than Corbyn and keeping them will be less difficult than winning Bolsover.
Her biggest mistake, the dementia tax, has also been scrapped
I'm still unconvinced the dementia tax was to blame. The timing does not really fit.
The Tory poll lead halved the week after the manifesto was announced, no party will ever consider making your home liable for personal at home care costs again
But it is already and the Tories proposed a small change that improved the residual estate!
The policy itself was sound, and a welcome sight to see someone try and address an issue that had been on the too-difficult list for many years.
The issue was that it was immediately defined perjoratively by political opponents, and no-one wanted to defend it from the Conservative side. We should have had every available minister all over the TV for those first three days, debating it and selling it.
More importantly, signal it *before* the campaign, and especially the problem you are trying to solve. As it was, it just dropped out of nowhere.
I do wonder if it was something that was being worked on ready for the next GE, and when it was called early, the policy was suddenly pulled out of the bag well-formed but poorly briefed.
That sounds about right. I’m not too sure they thought it would be particularly controversial when it was written out, so they didn’t prepare an extensive briefing paper on it. What annoyed me was that all the brains in the CCHQ operation still hadn’t written a briefing paper on it half a week later, and still hadn’t found a minister to drop what he was doing and go tour the TV and radio studios talking about social care.
It would have been an opportunity to appeal to the younger generation taken in by Corbyn, that the choice is that either old people pay for social care as they need it, or young people pay for it through increased general taxation.
How's Nicla's jolly to China going ? Seems to have coincided with the Nat teenagers having a nat cat fight.
As well as the one to Germany when 'a meeting with the German Foreign Ministry' turned out to be 'lunch at a local restaurant with a mid-ranking official'?
Depends what school you're in. In a maintained school, yes, in theory, in some other schools possibly not. Even in maintained schools with the rise of three year GCSEs it's not always observed properly.
That's pretty damning - and worthy of being raised at a PMQs.
That said, if you want a real brewing scandal that could be a serious matter for the government, you might want to wonder how it is that although GCSE exams start one month on Saturday due to an elementary cockup by OFQUAL and the DfES we still don't have definitive marking criteria for the new History GCSE.
Well there won't be any accusations of teaching to test this year, will there?
Totally agree about The boy in Stripped Pyjamas. Abysmal book.
We did warn TSE that wearing the full Liverpool kit to the game last night might not be a good idea...
Families are left terrified as brawl breaks out in stands at the Man City-Liverpool match when a Reds fan among the home fans celebrates his team scoring
Depends what school you're in. In a maintained school, yes, in theory, in some other schools possibly not. Even in maintained schools with the rise of three year GCSEs it's not always observed properly.
That's pretty damning - and worthy of being raised at a PMQs.
Perhaps I should clarify a bit. It is legally required that all schools should teach about the Holocaust in some way, shape or form. I think that even applies to independent schools. Exactly how they teach it is however more flexible. For example, in my school this year we took it out of the History syllabus (which was fearsomely cramped) and put it in RS. This was little more than an administrative change from our point of view because as it happens all four people who teach History also teach RS, and although I don't have the title I also act as Head of RS. It's worked very well and allowed us to lead into other issues surrounding race/racism and religious violence. More pertinently, while we are observing the spirit rather than the letter of the curriculum, outside the maintained sector oversight is rather differently managed so there isn't always a check to see it is being taught at all.
What worries me is that due to those time constraints I mentioned above a large number of schools seem to be putting it into English and via the medium of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. Neither strike me as appropriate. English teachers are trained in textual criticism not ethical considerations, and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is shit - as literature and history. That is where problems can occur. Others seem to be taking it down the PSHE route. I have to wonder whether such a complex issue is best handled by teachers picked for their unlikeliness to be embarrassed when talking about sex to teenagers (and as a result is dominated by PE and Biology teachers who very seldom have training in history or philosophy).
That said, if you want a real brewing scandal that could be a serious matter for the government, you might want to wonder how it is that although GCSE exams start one month on Saturday due to an elementary cockup by OFQUAL and the DfES we still don't have definitive marking criteria for the new History GCSE.
The other issue may be that it is taught as something that is only done by nasty right-wing fascists and nazis. Thus the roots of left-wing anti-semitism: the Jew as banker, capitalist blood sucker and oppressor (similar of course to the complaints of the nazis) may not be obvious. This may explain why so many left-wingers seem both oblivious to the anti-semitic tropes they are spreading and their long history and roots within a certain strand of left-wing thought. They seem to think that anti-semitism is something which only right-wingers can be guilty of.
Depends what school you're in. In a maintained school, yes, in theory, in some other schools possibly not. Even in maintained schools with the rise of three year GCSEs it's not always observed properly.
That's pretty damning - and worthy of being raised at a PMQs.
That said, if you want a real brewing scandal that could be a serious matter for the government, you might want to wonder how it is that although GCSE exams start one month on Saturday due to an elementary cockup by OFQUAL and the DfES we still don't have definitive marking criteria for the new History GCSE.
Well there won't be any accusations of teaching to test this year, will there?
This year the teachers are being tested. We have to guess what the examiners want.
This is made much more difficult by the fact that the people writing the criteria (a) are civil servants not historians (b) have explicitly rejected the advice of professional historians while publicly claiming they are following it and (c) are thick as pigshit - the error in question was that they didn't know the difference between 'analyse' and 'evaluate' so had to withdraw their original effort.
So I'm at a loss. Do I tell my students to write good history or what a civil servant who cannot match the intellectual capacity of a donkey - unless it's an especially stupid donkey - thinks good history ought to look like?
Oh and one final thought - the person responsible for this catastrophe is now Head of OFSTED, despite being a career civil servant and never having worked in a school in any capacity.
The policy itself was sound, and a welcome sight to see someone try and address an issue that had been on the too-difficult list for many years.
It wasn't well or thoroughly thought through and unravelled for that reason. It's a huge and complex area and it sounded as though a few Conservatives had a brainstorming session one afternoon with a flip chart and someone had tried to interpret the ramblings.
It is only "too difficult" because the root problem is money and that means someone somewhere will have to pay more in order for care to be better provided.
It sounded as though it was more about providing larger inheritance to children than tackling the core issues about the provision of adult social care and how that should be funded both now and (more importantly given the demographics) in the future.
Announcing it in the middle of an election campaign was incalculably stupid - those who stood to lose out would immediately jump up and down and the policy would look weak. Those who stand to lose will always make more noise than those who stand to gain and that resonates among the undecided in a campaign.
Indeed. There should have been a short statement in the manifesto promising a review of, and consultation on, care charges, while simultaneously giving a hard guarantee of the £100k allowance. You can't do detail in an election campaign so if it needs detail explaining, leave it out and just get consent for the principle - the detail would probably need changing anyway, which is precisely what a consultation should be for.
If the newish Tory party command under Lewis is any good, the Absolute Boy should be toast in 2022.
May and co obviously thought that bringing out all Corbyn's dirty history in an uncoordinated way pre the last election would kill him off and for some reason it didn't.
If they've got any sense, they'll be developing a 4 year carefully researched strategy to make his IRA fanboy history stick as one example. They can do the same with McDonnell.
In the meantime, his anti-Semitism and Russian apologist positioning does their job for them.
Depends what school you're in. In a maintained school, yes, in theory, in some other schools possibly not. Even in maintained schools with the rise of three year GCSEs it's not always observed properly.
That's pretty damning - and worthy of being raised at a PMQs.
That said, if you want a real brewing scandal that could be a serious matter for the government, you might want to wonder how it is that although GCSE exams start one month on Saturday due to an elementary cockup by OFQUAL and the DfES we still don't have definitive marking criteria for the new History GCSE.
Well there won't be any accusations of teaching to test this year, will there?
This year the teachers are being tested. We have to guess what the examiners want.
This is made much more difficult by the fact that the people writing the criteria (a) are civil servants not historians (b) have explicitly rejected the advice of professional historians while publicly claiming they are following it and (c) are thick as pigshit - the error in question was that they didn't know the difference between 'analyse' and 'evaluate' so had to withdraw their original effort.
So I'm at a loss. Do I tell my students to write good history or what a civil servant who cannot match the intellectual capacity of a donkey - unless it's an especially stupid donkey - thinks good history ought to look like?
Oh and one final thought - the person responsible for this catastrophe is now Head of OFSTED, despite being a career civil servant and never having worked in a school in any capacity.
Amanda Spielman was a weird appointment and she has shown very little evidence of growing into the role.
There's too many antis in "against anti-Semitism", you have to think it through to see which side he is on. Memo to British Council of Jews, if you read this: promote "judeophobia" as a word. "protest against judeophobia" has 10x the impact of "protest against anti-semitism".
The other point she makes about the effect of leaving the EU on her business, apart from the direct costs of the additional red tape, is that there is no substitute for the European Union as a market. On its own the United Kingdom is too small a market; other developed countries (Australia etc) too fragmented; developing countries (China etc) too unreliable and difficult to deal with. Whereas the European Union market is coherent and easy to deal with.
That was an interesting blog, and it's certainly true that for the business model of that company as it is currently organised, Brexit is a disaster. Having said that, there can't be many small companies so dependent on relatively low-value direct sales to the EU, so you can't extrapolate from this particular case to a wider conclusion on the impact of Brexit on 'business'. (Of course that's no consolation to this particular company).
However, Sean Fear is right that the business owners seem to be throwing the towel prematurely. They've already had nearly two years to think about how they might adapt, and seem to have done no thinking at all. No matter - they still have a full three years to plan for how they might adapt, the obvious answer being to sell through distributors or dealers rather than directly. Of course that means giving up a large chunk of gross margin, but against that they'd save a bunch on admin costs and transport. There's no sign in that blog that they're doing any planning or investigation of options like that.
If the newish Tory party command under Lewis is any good, the Absolute Boy should be toast in 2022.
May and co obviously thought that bringing out all Corbyn's dirty history in an uncoordinated way pre the last election would kill him off and for some reason it didn't.
If they've got any sense, they'll be developing a 4 year carefully researched strategy to make his IRA fanboy history stick as one example. They can do the same with McDonnell.
In the meantime, his anti-Semitism and Russian apologist positioning does their job for them.
I think they need more than that. They need a proper strategy to show people that Jezza's stuff is just a reheat of failed polices from the past (and present) around the world.
For the past 20 years the consensus between Tory, Labour and Lib Dem's has been capitalism is the best / least worst system, therefore they haven't had to fight against somebody who is out and out true believer in socialism / (or in McDonnell case Marxism).
Apparently all this antisemitism stuff is just dirty tricks...the cult just won't accept that there is a problem.
This goes well beyond a problem with anti-semitism imho (extremely bad enough as that is).
What the Corbyn fans are demonstrating is that they will broke no criticism of the leader, no matter how serious. They just don't want to know. It is all fake news, smears etc etc.
God alone knows how they will cope in government, when decisions have consequences and voters have responses to them.
Apparently all this antisemitism stuff is just dirty tricks...the cult just won't accept that there is a problem.
This goes well beyond a problem with anti-semitism imho (extremely bad enough as that is).
What the Corbyn fans are demonstrating is that they will broke no criticism of the leader, no matter how serious. They just don't want to know. It is all fake news, smears etc etc.
God alone knows how they will cope in government, when decisions have consequences and voters have responses to them.
Terrifying.
Dissent will not be tolerated...tractor production is at an all time high....
It is scary how similar the cult are to Trump fans, they inhabit tin foil hat conspiracy theory Fake News websites / twitter accounts and absolutely believe in them.
There's too many antis in "against anti-Semitism", you have to think it through to see which side he is on. Memo to British Council of Jews, if you read this: promote "judeophobia" as a word. "protest against judeophobia" has 10x the impact of "protest against anti-semitism".
Or even anti-Jew racism which is what I note OGH uses.
"Now's not the time" "Too close to an election" "Not before brexit" "We can't depose the lady who delivered Brexit" "We have a lead over Labour, we can't risk upsetting the apple cart now" "We're behind Labour, she's got us into this mess she'll get us out". "We're too far behind, we can't change leader now" "Brexit is going wrong, noone wants to take over now its a poisoned chalice" "We're 5-10 points ahead, why rock the boat"
Because we were 25% ahead at the last election then she soiled the bed.
The last election demonstrated that supposedly uber-smart political movers and shakers surrounding Mrs. May actually had the political acumen of the slugs in my garden.....
Where were the people in the Tory campaign standing up and shouting at the top of their lungs "You want to do the fuck WHAT?????" That incredulity should have covered:
a) holding the election at all b) holding the election separate from the locals c) the content of the manifesto d) the debates e) the election materials f) a whole load of stuff I've probably forgotten but spiked my blood pressure forty points at the time.
I'm only part way through Tim Shipman's "Fall Out" but it's clear that there were people shouting those things but that May was being hermetically sealed from them by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill - who sealed May from anything they didn't agree with.
On your points:
a) the election was the right call - a small majority left too many hostages to fortune and 2016-7 presented the best opportunity a PM could hope for.
b) I don't think this much mattered either way. The Tory campaign was brought down by the manifesto; if anything, the local elections (which were outstanding for the Tories) boosted morale. Had she not screwed everything up shortly after, the reality of the poll leads at the time would have caused serious worries and possibly infighting in other parties.
c) Yes - the manifesto was barely disclosed to anyone. Idiots. Why hire the best political consultants in the world and then not use them?
d) Agreed. You can't be strong and stable and then hide from scrutiny.
e) Not sure what you mean there, but i suspect it's largely duplicating other points?
f) Again, down to the excessive control in the centre meaning that (1) information wasn't properly disclosed and discussed among the Tory team (indeed, there wasn't much 'team'), and (2) there was no 'grid' to try to control the media agenda, leaving the door open to Labour.
We did warn TSE that wearing the full Liverpool kit to the game last night might not be a good idea...
Families are left terrified as brawl breaks out in stands at the Man City-Liverpool match when a Reds fan among the home fans celebrates his team scoring
Apparently all this antisemitism stuff is just dirty tricks...the cult just won't accept that there is a problem.
I wonder if Jewish groups are going to stand candidates for election against some of the worst offenders - either on their own in safe seats, or with other parties in more marginal areas?
The other point she makes about the effect of leaving the EU on her business, apart from the direct costs of the additional red tape, is that there is no substitute for the European Union as a market. On its own the United Kingdom is too small a market; other developed countries (Australia etc) too fragmented; developing countries (China etc) too unreliable and difficult to deal with. Whereas the European Union market is coherent and easy to deal with.
That was an interesting blog, and it's certainly true that for the business model of that company as it is currently organised, Brexit is a disaster. Having said that, there can't be many small companies so dependent on relatively low-value direct sales to the EU, so you can't extrapolate from this particular case to a wider conclusion on the impact of Brexit on 'business'. (Of course that's no consolation to this particular company).
However, Sean Fear is right that the business owners seem to be throwing the towel prematurely. They've already had nearly two years to think about how they might adapt, and seem to have done no thinking at all. No matter - they still have a full three years to plan for how they might adapt, the obvious answer being to sell through distributors or dealers rather than directly. Of course that means giving up a large chunk of gross margin, but against that they'd save a bunch on admin costs and transport. There's no sign in that blog that they're doing any planning or investigation of options like that.
The numbers for the business look all wrong; turnover of £800k is a very small business, and 10 employees plus 2 working owners (if I understand correctly) is a lot to be making a living off that turnover. If the concept is as well proven as it seems to be they should have expanded to the stage where they can afford to automate their systems, I would have thought. They also have time to reinvent themselves as sellers to the UK market only, in the expectation brexit will bugger up their competitors' UK sales as much as their EU ones.
There's too many antis in "against anti-Semitism", you have to think it through to see which side he is on. Memo to British Council of Jews, if you read this: promote "judeophobia" as a word. "protest against judeophobia" has 10x the impact of "protest against anti-semitism".
Why have we gone all American and put the months before the date?
Other than that moan a very interesting chart. The swing from 29th May (+9) to 11th June (-32) is particularly marked and I cannot recall such volatility in these type of scores before. Message number one: if you are expecting the British people to elect you their PM you really had better go and speak to them.
Indeed. The next election campaign won't be fought in warehouses in front of a handful of the party faithful.
If Tessy is still around it might be. Her recent whistle stop tour of the four nations of her 'precious, precious union' was like a concentrated stock cube of the whole inept, control freak GE car crash.
How's Nicla's jolly to China going ? Seems to have coincided with the Nat teenagers having a nat cat fight.
Difficult to tell through the jaundiced lens of BBC Tooweetoopoortoostupid, though measured on the Yoon gum bumping scale I'd guess passable well.
Yes, things have been a bit fractious lately. A bonus is seeing Yoons suddenly jump in on the side of Nats e.g. Pete Wishart that they'd previously thought beyond the pale.
Apparently all this antisemitism stuff is just dirty tricks...the cult just won't accept that there is a problem.
I wonder if Jewish groups are going to stand candidates for election against some of the worst offenders - either on their own in safe seats, or with other parties in more marginal areas?
Hmm - wouldn't it simply split the opposition and let the Maomentum candidate have an easier ride ?
Love the way people are making predictions, just like they were making predictions last year.
it is very difficult to make predictions about an election that is 4 years off - and of little value.
Time to focus on the local elections - what are good results for each party ?
For Labour - to keep the media focus on London For the Lib Dems - to take journalists to SW London For the Tories - to draw the media's attention to the world beyond London For UKIP - a small war in the Middle East
There's too many antis in "against anti-Semitism", you have to think it through to see which side he is on. Memo to British Council of Jews, if you read this: promote "judeophobia" as a word. "protest against judeophobia" has 10x the impact of "protest against anti-semitism".
Loach (and others like him) are stuck at the stage in any crisis (see Cyclefree’s 10 Stages of A Crisis, previously posted) where protecting the reputation of the organisation is seen as more important than dealing with the problem. What this inevitably means is that the organisation is tainted with the problem and perceived as still having it long after it has taken steps to sort out the problem. Labour has yet to get to that stage and there must be a question mark whether it will effectively do so under its current leadership.
Protecting Corbyn is more important to these people than anything else, itself an implicit acceptance that he is part of the problem. That is why - for all their fine words - it is unlikely that the Corbynites will be able to deal with this problem effectively.
Apparently all this antisemitism stuff is just dirty tricks...the cult just won't accept that there is a problem.
I wonder if Jewish groups are going to stand candidates for election against some of the worst offenders - either on their own in safe seats, or with other parties in more marginal areas?
Hmm - wouldn't it simply split the opposition and let the Maomentum candidate have an easier ride ?
It was also feed the conspiracy theorists even more. Look, Jewish bankers are funding candidates to stand against the anointed ones etc etc.
There's too many antis in "against anti-Semitism", you have to think it through to see which side he is on. Memo to British Council of Jews, if you read this: promote "judeophobia" as a word. "protest against judeophobia" has 10x the impact of "protest against anti-semitism".
Or even anti-Jew racism which is what I note OGH uses.
'The festering stench of Jew hate racism' was the last pronouncement I think...
Currently, the EU are trying to pass barmy legislation ('anti terror', apparently - though what printed books from 1767 have to do with terror funding, no-one seems to be able to say) that could cripple the entire antiques industry.
Your move.
Instead of shamelessly indulging in speculative whataboutery you could try responding to the detailed, calm and poignant points made in the blog, by someone who epitomises everything your party used to stand for - free enterprise, hard work and self sacrifice.
The Tory brand will never recover from the damage done by Brexit.
Why do you think that? The Conservative Party has been around for a long time, and has done many controversial things, and yet still has millions of people voting for it. The idea that Brexit is somehow unique is a little odd.
Having said that, no party has a right to exist as a force, which the liberals learnt in the early decades of the last century. But that applies to Labour as much as the Conservatives.
The fact you ask that question suggests you didn’t read the blog.
The fact you said that suggests you don't have an answer.
The answer is in the blog. I took it as read.
I think the author is throwing in the towel, prematurely.
And you’re arrogant enough to think you know best, naturally.
I agree that leadership ratings are important. But will the leadership ratings that are relevant at the next election include either of these two?
Both I think. I know you disagree, but I'm not laying Corbyn next PM for a reason.
For Jeremy Corbyn to be next Prime Minister, Theresa May needs to remain Prime Minister until replaced by him. That could happen if the current government collapses in chaos and Labour take office without an election (about a 1/50 chance now, I'd guess) or if:
1) she is not replaced by a Conservative beforehand either by choice or by coup (about a 1/3 chance now, I'd guess); AND 2) he is not replaced as Labour leader beforehand either by choice or by coup (about a 3/5 chance now, I'd guess); AND 3) Labour does sufficiently well against the Conservatives at the next election to take power with him taking charge of government (about a 1/2 chance now, I'd guess).
Putting those together, that gives him a 12% chance. So he still looks like a lay to me, though not outrageously so.
I appreciate that other guesses will produce different answers. NB I have taken an optimistic view of Labour's chances at the next election if you think that leadership ratings are important, that both these two will be fighting each other again and that the current poll findings are indicative of public opinion at the time of the next election.
There's too many antis in "against anti-Semitism", you have to think it through to see which side he is on. Memo to British Council of Jews, if you read this: promote "judeophobia" as a word. "protest against judeophobia" has 10x the impact of "protest against anti-semitism".
Or even anti-Jew racism which is what I note OGH uses.
While Judophobia, more flowing imo than Judeophobia, would likely be misinterpreted
There's too many antis in "against anti-Semitism", you have to think it through to see which side he is on. Memo to British Council of Jews, if you read this: promote "judeophobia" as a word. "protest against judeophobia" has 10x the impact of "protest against anti-semitism".
Or even anti-Jew racism which is what I note OGH uses.
While Judophobia, more flowing imo than Judeophobia, would likely be misinterpreted
Why not drop the strict classical linguistic inheritance and go with Jewphobic?
"The World Health Organization (WHO) has demanded "unhindered access" to Douma in Syria, to check reports from its partners that 500 people have been affected by a chemical attack there."
Comments
She has a choice she can either go of her own volition before the next election or the Parliamentary party will force her out.
If the local associations had fought these seats as marginals, they would have been retained. Boundary changes next time will hopefully make it a little easier.
There's no doubt the response to Salisbury and the drip-drip of anti-Semitism stories has damaged Corbyn. I wasn't that critical of Corbyn's initial response and there are still for me a lot of unanswered questions about the whole affair.
I don't trust any Government and want to see some evidence so being told effectively "it was the Russians, trust us" isn't going to cut any ice with me. It's hard to see frankly who else it could have been but whether this was an actual State-sanctioned attack or a rogue element is open to question. Nonetheless, the responsibility lies at Moscow's door.
As for anti-Semitism, it has deep cultural roots across much of Europe regrettably and as (equally regrettably) the horrific events of the mid 20th Century fade from some memories it has allowed the deeper cultural responses to re-emerge. I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the things I've seen and heard and it depresses me our history is so little taught to and remembered by so many that a genocide of huge proportions within the last century means so little.
In a century replete with appalling acts of inhumanity, the Holocaust has a special place and should always be respected and remembered not just, I would add, for the suffering of the Jews but for the other groups who were systematically murdered in the name of a perverted racist ideology.
I was in the prawn sandwich brigade seats.
By the 75th there were only Liverpool fans there and we cheered when Bobby scored.
That said I did let out a very loud ‘For fuck’s sake’ when Sane ‘scored’ but everyone thought I was having a go at the referee.
The ref was really poor, was a foul on Big Virg. Plus we should have had a penalty and a City player sent off in the build up to our first goal.
Anyhoo the result will disappoint the EDL
Jesus’s mob 1 - Mohammed’s lot 5
I actually wonder if a 1-2 might just have been possible had they not kept Hamilton out on his first set of tyres for two or three laps too many, which saw him lose a massive amount of time (having said that, he did hold Vettel up for half a lap or so).
"Too close to an election"
"Not before brexit"
"We can't depose the lady who delivered Brexit"
"We have a lead over Labour, we can't risk upsetting the apple cart now"
"We're behind Labour, she's got us into this mess she'll get us out".
"We're too far behind, we can't change leader now"
"Brexit is going wrong, noone wants to take over now its a poisoned chalice"
"We're 5-10 points ahead, why rock the boat"
If you're quoting the Bible for May, can I suggest Aesop's words for Corbyn:
'A man is known by the company he keeps.'
Has Mrs May abducted Yulia Skripal, Mr Corbyn? That's what the Russians are saying, so it must be true. Should we launch an enquiry into it?, When Jeremy stretches reasonable doubt to extraordinary lengths, the suspicion grow that he's away with the fairies.
Not a good look.
The more interesting question is where, when that happens, it will leave the Labour moderates who will have looked uncomfortably compromised and Vichy-like....
As for Corbyn - in opposition, once you are done you are done. He's on a one way ticket to the election night drinks party with Ed, Gordon, Neil and Michael Foot.
The issue was that it was immediately defined perjoratively by political opponents, and no-one wanted to defend it from the Conservative side. We should have had every available minister all over the TV for those first three days, debating it and selling it.
Where were the people in the Tory campaign standing up and shouting at the top of their lungs "You want to do the fuck WHAT?????" That incredulity should have covered:
a) holding the election at all
b) holding the election separate from the locals
c) the content of the manifesto
d) the debates
e) the election materials
f) a whole load of stuff I've probably forgotten but spiked my blood pressure forty points at the time.
I do wonder if it was something that was being worked on ready for the next GE, and when it was called early, the policy was suddenly pulled out of the bag well-formed but poorly briefed.
I as a Tory could not in my heart defend it and it will certainly never be considered again
"Does OGH have that much influence?"
Not wishing to go all Corbynite, but he once worked for the BBC, so no doubt he will be scheming to scupper the Labour Party.
But overall, the Holocaust has slipped from a human collective memory to an event in history, which like slavery or empires happened in a different time when people acted and thought differently.
Those assumptions are, of course, wrong. But they're comforting all the same and the ignorance that comes from a lack of direct contact is sufficient to maintain them.
It naturally left out a huge amount and it was some time before I knew of the efforts of individuals and diplomats and actions such as the Kindertransport or the rescue of the Danish Jews which, while only doing a little, showed some lights of humanity in the darkness.
I don't know how it is taught now - clearly for some it has little or no impact.
As well as the one to Germany when 'a meeting with the German Foreign Ministry' turned out to be 'lunch at a local restaurant with a mid-ranking official'?
What worries me is that due to those time constraints I mentioned above a large number of schools seem to be putting it into English and via the medium of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. Neither strike me as appropriate. English teachers are trained in textual criticism not ethical considerations, and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is shit - as literature and history. That is where problems can occur. Others seem to be taking it down the PSHE route. I have to wonder whether such a complex issue is best handled by teachers picked for their unlikeliness to be embarrassed when talking about sex to teenagers (and as a result is dominated by PE and Biology teachers who very seldom have training in history or philosophy).
That said, if you want a real brewing scandal that could be a serious matter for the government, you might want to wonder how it is that although GCSE exams start one month on Saturday due to an elementary cockup by OFQUAL and the DfES we still don't have definitive marking criteria for the new History GCSE.
Time to focus on the local elections - what are good results for each party ?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4868814/amp/David-Davis-pushed-Theresa-Election-disaster.html
That said the hubris of that prick Nick Timothy telling people ‘It took Dave and George years to change the party and country, I did it in weeks’ still makes me think he is worse than Mark ‘Pigdog’ Reckless
It is only "too difficult" because the root problem is money and that means someone somewhere will have to pay more in order for care to be better provided.
It sounded as though it was more about providing larger inheritance to children than tackling the core issues about the provision of adult social care and how that should be funded both now and (more importantly given the demographics) in the future.
Announcing it in the middle of an election campaign was incalculably stupid - those who stood to lose out would immediately jump up and down and the policy would look weak. Those who stand to lose will always make more noise than those who stand to gain and that resonates among the undecided in a campaign.
https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/971684531819438081
It would have been an opportunity to appeal to the younger generation taken in by Corbyn, that the choice is that either old people pay for social care as they need it, or young people pay for it through increased general taxation.
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/983971524402204672
At least he's got his finger on the pulse of what really matters
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/michelin-restaurants-in-britain-how-will-brexit-impact-uk-fine-dining-1-4839214
Totally agree about The boy in Stripped Pyjamas. Abysmal book.
On History GCSEs: shocking.
This is made much more difficult by the fact that the people writing the criteria (a) are civil servants not historians (b) have explicitly rejected the advice of professional historians while publicly claiming they are following it and (c) are thick as pigshit - the error in question was that they didn't know the difference between 'analyse' and 'evaluate' so had to withdraw their original effort.
So I'm at a loss. Do I tell my students to write good history or what a civil servant who cannot match the intellectual capacity of a donkey - unless it's an especially stupid donkey - thinks good history ought to look like?
Oh and one final thought - the person responsible for this catastrophe is now Head of OFSTED, despite being a career civil servant and never having worked in a school in any capacity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5602429/Ken-Loach-demands-Labour-MPs-demonstrated-against-anti-Semitism-kicked-party.html#ixzz5CLhw2dbP
May and co obviously thought that bringing out all Corbyn's dirty history in an uncoordinated way pre the last election would kill him off and for some reason it didn't.
If they've got any sense, they'll be developing a 4 year carefully researched strategy to make his IRA fanboy history stick as one example. They can do the same with McDonnell.
In the meantime, his anti-Semitism and Russian apologist positioning does their job for them.
https://www.rt.com/news/423776-military-plane-crash-algeria/
However, Sean Fear is right that the business owners seem to be throwing the towel prematurely. They've already had nearly two years to think about how they might adapt, and seem to have done no thinking at all. No matter - they still have a full three years to plan for how they might adapt, the obvious answer being to sell through distributors or dealers rather than directly. Of course that means giving up a large chunk of gross margin, but against that they'd save a bunch on admin costs and transport. There's no sign in that blog that they're doing any planning or investigation of options like that.
For the past 20 years the consensus between Tory, Labour and Lib Dem's has been capitalism is the best / least worst system, therefore they haven't had to fight against somebody who is out and out true believer in socialism / (or in McDonnell case Marxism).
What the Corbyn fans are demonstrating is that they will broke no criticism of the leader, no matter how serious. They just don't want to know. It is all fake news, smears etc etc.
God alone knows how they will cope in government, when decisions have consequences and voters have responses to them.
Terrifying.
It is scary how similar the cult are to Trump fans, they inhabit tin foil hat conspiracy theory Fake News websites / twitter accounts and absolutely believe in them.
Labour don't knife leaders.
On your points:
a) the election was the right call - a small majority left too many hostages to fortune and 2016-7 presented the best opportunity a PM could hope for.
b) I don't think this much mattered either way. The Tory campaign was brought down by the manifesto; if anything, the local elections (which were outstanding for the Tories) boosted morale. Had she not screwed everything up shortly after, the reality of the poll leads at the time would have caused serious worries and possibly infighting in other parties.
c) Yes - the manifesto was barely disclosed to anyone. Idiots. Why hire the best political consultants in the world and then not use them?
d) Agreed. You can't be strong and stable and then hide from scrutiny.
e) Not sure what you mean there, but i suspect it's largely duplicating other points?
f) Again, down to the excessive control in the centre meaning that (1) information wasn't properly disclosed and discussed among the Tory team (indeed, there wasn't much 'team'), and (2) there was no 'grid' to try to control the media agenda, leaving the door open to Labour.
https://youtu.be/Bt9zSfinwFA
Yes, things have been a bit fractious lately. A bonus is seeing Yoons suddenly jump in on the side of Nats e.g. Pete Wishart that they'd previously thought beyond the pale.
For the Lib Dems - to take journalists to SW London
For the Tories - to draw the media's attention to the world beyond London
For UKIP - a small war in the Middle East
Protecting Corbyn is more important to these people than anything else, itself an implicit acceptance that he is part of the problem. That is why - for all their fine words - it is unlikely that the Corbynites will be able to deal with this problem effectively.
(To be fair, in any other situation, 2016 was a knifing; it's just that Corbyn was wearing a membership-made kevlar vest).
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-43714534?__twitter_impression=true
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/983987147546951680
1) she is not replaced by a Conservative beforehand either by choice or by coup (about a 1/3 chance now, I'd guess); AND
2) he is not replaced as Labour leader beforehand either by choice or by coup (about a 3/5 chance now, I'd guess); AND
3) Labour does sufficiently well against the Conservatives at the next election to take power with him taking charge of government (about a 1/2 chance now, I'd guess).
Putting those together, that gives him a 12% chance. So he still looks like a lay to me, though not outrageously so.
I appreciate that other guesses will produce different answers. NB I have taken an optimistic view of Labour's chances at the next election if you think that leadership ratings are important, that both these two will be fighting each other again and that the current poll findings are indicative of public opinion at the time of the next election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43725352