|
|
Post by Mark on May 24, 2024 11:16:34 GMT
Last night's Question Time...
The tory was abysmal, cherry picking facts - and being called out on it by Fiona Bruce - and scripted lines...
But, if anything, the Labour pannelist was even worse. Evasive on just about every question, save a few well prepared lines.
The LibDem was, with ease, the star of the show, giving clear answers and able to think on her feet.
Ok, the election is Labour's to lose, but, they really do need to up their game on last night's performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by davem on May 24, 2024 11:22:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 24, 2024 11:31:01 GMT
Last night's Question Time... The tory was abysmal, cherry picking facts - and being called out on it by Fiona Bruce - and scripted lines... But, if anything, the Labour pannelist was even worse. Evasive on just about every question, save a few well prepared lines. The LibDem was, with ease, the star of the show, giving clear answers and able to think on her feet. Ok, the election is Labour's to lose, but, they really do need to up their game on last night's performance. I think you haven't considered that in 6 weeks time Bridget Phillipson could be in the Education hot seat. The other panellists, including Daisy Cooper are not going to actually be in that position, ie to decide how whatever money is available is going to be allocated. Every member in that audience was restive and asking for money.....education, health, defence, cost of living priorities etc. What would you have her do, make promises on the hoof about how presently an unknowable budget is to be prioritised and allocated? She was evasive but frankly she had no choice given the reality. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 24, 2024 12:06:01 GMT
Andrew Marr on the biggest risk facing LabourMany years ago, when following Neil Kinnock around on the election trail, I was admonished in the battle bus by the journalist Richard Littlejohn for asking questions that were too long: “Our job is to sit at the back throwing bottles,” he said. Anyway, that’s enough bottles for this piece. Where are the vulnerabilities for Labour?
The biggest and most obvious one is the narrative itself, that of a big Labour victory in the making. Voters are naturally suspicious of landslide governments, with the cockiness that brings. They may be looking at the polls and thinking, hmm, there is already a sense of entitlement creeping in here; better not help them too much. The danger is not people flooding to the Tories so much as a quiet scepticism that means them not voting at all.Marr hitting the nail on the head as usual. Is he? Not in my book he isn't. Where's Labour's "entitlement creeping in"? All I'm seeing is an almost obsequious sense of humility from Labour front-benchers about taking nothing for granted and having to earn the voters trust. Almost to the point of it being a little overdone and arch at times. They can't be blamed for leading in the polls by large margins. And what's this nonsense about the wisdom of an electorate conspiring to "deny" parties anything? The British voters don't like landslides? Well we all got it terribly wrong then in 1983, 1987, 1997, 2001 and 2019. What a silly lot we all are. We better get chatting to each other pronto to stop this entitled Labour landslide then. Sit on your arse, my fellow citizens. You know it makes sense. Marr is talking baloney. Voters will vote on a purely individual basis in the privacy of the polling booth and then we collectively see what we've all done at the end of it. That's then called the election result. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 24, 2024 12:09:32 GMT
LDs must have focus group or other data showing the Daisy Cooper lands reasonably well with their target voters as she been on TV more than Davey in the last 2 days.
Could be he has family commitments, which we know can occupy much of his time, but I think more likely that this is a conscious decision to give prominence to their likely next leader.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:12:29 GMT
In the Paula Vennelles evidence today, an email where she told her boss (ie that would be at HM government?) that today she had 'earned her keep' in keeping mention of the Horizon system out of the propospectus being developed for privatisation of Royal Mail on behalf of the coalition government.
So...on behalf of the conservative administration more than ten years ago, she was activwely suppressing talk of Horizon because she knew there was a problem with it. And hard to see how her boss could not also have known. Which means, the government. Possibly a civil servant, but the coverup has now formally stretched to above her level. And formally more than a decade ago. The general inference would seem to be Conservatives wanted to privatise the PO, and so any bad publicity had to be suppressed.
It seems deeply unlikely Vennelles did anything her bosses did not want done. after leaving the PO someone found her another job as a company directer, and nearly got her a bishopric. So who has influence picking church of England Bishops?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:14:58 GMT
Millionaire 74 year old engages in a bit of self indulgence. "Jeremy Corbyn to stand as independent at general election Former Labour leader confirms he will stand as an independent candidate in Islington North" Old enough that when he was young you could buy a home in London now worth millions on an ordinary salary? I seem to remember you said something similar about when you were working in Soho, and sounds like he is older than yourself so would have started when prices were even lower than yours? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:18:40 GMT
In casualty last fortnight the guy was asking when I last had a tetanus shot, to which the answer was I have no specific recollection of ever having one, though probably did as a kid. But if stabbing myself on dirty rusty barbed wire was going to kill me, Id be long since dead. The human immune system works! But you are right, what people dying from covid most had in common was that they were old and therefore their immune systems packing up. So many died from covid probably because modern medicine had kept them alive already beyond a natural unassisted lifetime. Bloody hell you’re an insensitive twat. Seriously? Its just an obvious conclusion form the statistics, old people died from covid, not young ones. what did they have in common? Its amazing people cannot accept this. Old people were at risk and needed to isolate. Young people did not. Lockdown mostly involved halting people of working age from engaging in their normal occupations and therfore cost the nation a King's ransom in lost production and added national debt. For nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 24, 2024 12:23:49 GMT
An academic and idle thought, and we may need our more thorough polling archivists to corroborate, but are some of these sub 20 polling ratings for the Tories historical lows for one of our two major parties, certainly this close to a general election? I stand to be corrected, and I probably will be in due course, but I can't ever remember Labour plumbing the depths that the Tories are now. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:27:36 GMT
Not surprisingly Corbyn expelled from the Labour Party, joining Ramsay Macdonald as the only two Labour leaders to be expelled In good company then... |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:28:48 GMT
Trump mental decline accelerating, his poorly attended cult gathering in the Bronx yesterday dissolved within minutes into an overwhelmingly incomprehensible shambles, with cult acolytes leaving early. youtu.be/tVKlJcWHlIs?si=3t1tpzDQvHpyB89FAre people missing that a proportion of voters will vote for him precisely because he is deluded, because they want to destroy the federal government from within? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2024 12:31:41 GMT
Is “theses” the plural of these? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:38:54 GMT
It really just gets worse, doesn't it? This is from the Guardian live blog - "Sunak says smoking bill shows he can take ‘bold action’, despite failing to pass it" Sums the last 14 years up rather well, I think. The smoking bill was a piece of nonsense anyway. 1) Then youngest were already giving up smoking anyway so no point in a ban. It was legislation intended to get maximum publicity with little objection, because very few youngsters actually smoke anyway. But that means it wouldnt accomplish anything either. 2) Medical statistics suggest there is a low risk smoking while young. 20 years after giving up the great majority of excess risk is gone, after 10 years most of it. Actually, while young is the safest time to smoke. 3) Heard an interesting interview with a cancer expert where she noted it had been thought if we could stop people smoking then cancer deaths would tumble. But they didnt. Yes, smoking brings forward your age at death, but people get cancer anyway if they live longer. As well say youngsters should be banned from other high risk things such as driving. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on May 24, 2024 12:40:16 GMT
In the latest Ashcroft poll, in a forced choice voters comfortably preferred a Lab govt led by Starmer to a Tory govt led by Sunak, But, of course voters don't have a forced choice (unlike in Australia where voting is compulsory). The number of those who choose not to vote at all will be an indicator of how many positively want to see a Labour government as opposed to those who are just happy to see the Tories out of power, but don't feel compelled to do anything to bring it about (this will particularly be the case in seats that Labour already hold). |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:40:35 GMT
Thanks for the link, Steve. While it would be good to get a high turnout, this does not seem likely. But would it affect the outcome? Recent by election results suggest stonking swings to labour even on low turnouts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2024 12:42:14 GMT
So, 75 and still counting of Tory MPs skulking off. Is it becoming some sort of record?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:44:16 GMT
Last night's Question Time... Ok, the election is Labour's to lose, but, they really do need to up their game on last night's performance. This is the consequence of their now longstanding strategy of trying to shadow con or almost everything. It isnt new, Blair did the same. But Blair did manage to find certain causes to differentiate himself. 'Education, Education, Education'. Not to mention 'things can only get better'. Early days though, no manifesto yet. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on May 24, 2024 12:49:44 GMT
Where's Labour's "entitlement creeping in"? All I'm seeing is an almost obsequious sense of humility from Labour front-benchers about taking nothing for granted and having to earn the voters trust. Almost to the point of it being a little overdone and arch at times. ...and now we get the Lab playbook. Lab is remarkably good at sustaining and amplifying doubts and superstitions. Lab has had double-digit poll leads for over a year. No-one seriously doubts that the electorate is thoroughly fed up of this government and that only a hopelessly incompetent or very radical Opposition wouldn't be preferred. No-one is seriously suggesting that Starmer's Lab falls into either of those categories. Only one prediction on the predictions thread doesn't have Lab winning a very comfortable majority, yet UKPR2 contributors are still talking about Ming vases, slippery floors and bacon sandwiches. Starmer could drip ketchup down his shirt whilst eating a bacon sandwich without having to worry about his majority. I'm probably more sceptical than most about VI polls, but even I'll be surprised if I don't wake up to a Lab majority on July 5th, so are UKPR2's Labourite contributors: (a) a thoroughly superstitious bunch; (b) suffering from the ingrained data scepticism that often seems to afflict people without a scientific or mathematical background; (c) campaigning; (d) all of the above? |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 24, 2024 12:49:57 GMT
Is “theses” the plural of these? Theses was an obscure 2nd century Greek philosopher who developed the theory that man was by nature acquisitive and territorial. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 24, 2024 12:50:43 GMT
Not only insensitive, but completely wrong as well. It's not medicine that has been the primary reason why we're living longer. The overwhelming benefit in terms of extended life span has come from environmental improvements in living conditions that have suppressed disease. Direct medical intervention has had a far smaller effect. We have been over this before. When labour was last in power and spending more on the NHS annual death rate was falling steadily. At the point con took over and cut NHS spending, death rate started rising. I'd agree with you this isnt the PRIMARY reason we live longer nowadays, but its clear our level of spending on medicine directly affects our survival through the last few years of our lives. Affects it more than covid. You want people to live longer, spend more on the NHS (and presumably social care). |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 24, 2024 12:52:08 GMT
Another one bites the dust. Redwood not standing. Bit of a shame really. How are we supposed to enjoy our Portillo moments if they all decide to retire at the last minute? Step forward Jacob Rees-Mogg |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 24, 2024 12:52:14 GMT
In the latest Ashcroft poll, in a forced choice voters comfortably preferred a Lab govt led by Starmer to a Tory govt led by Sunak, But, of course voters don't have a forced choice (unlike in Australia where voting is compulsory). The number of those who choose not to vote at all will be an indicator of how many positively want to see a Labour government as opposed to those who are just happy to see the Tories out of power, but don't feel compelled to do anything to bring it about (this will particularly be the case in seats that Labour already hold). Never looked into it but I'd be curious to know, a) what the actual turnout percentage is in Australia, ie is it actually 95+ %? b) what percentage of voters on average, over time choose the 'none of the above' option I believe they have and c) does compulsory voting lead to significantly higher support for the actual parties than in other Western democracies without compulsory voting? |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 24, 2024 12:57:53 GMT
Millionaire 74 year old engages in a bit of self indulgence. "Jeremy Corbyn to stand as independent at general election Former Labour leader confirms he will stand as an independent candidate in Islington North" It was always all about Jeremy in the end. Glastonbury 2017 the pinnacle. To be fair to Corbyn, the aftermath Grenfell was probably his finest hour. He got it right, May hopelessly wrong. The nadir was his reaction to the Salisbury poisoning. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on May 24, 2024 12:58:42 GMT
domjgTurnout in Australia is typically >95%. There's always a small percentage of invalid votes (you can't choose 'none of the above', but you can 'vote informally' - what we call spoiling your ballot). Every so often Australia tinkers with the voting process to try to minimise the number of people who accidentally cast an informal vote. I'll dig up some data later if you're interested - it'll vary a bit depending on the election, because they use different systems in different elections.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 24, 2024 12:58:52 GMT
How are we supposed to enjoy our Portillo moments if they all decide to retire at the last minute? I'm in a small minority on here in viewing the forthcoming GE with a sense of resignation rather than excitement. Weeks of inanities from politicians, journalists and voters, followed by the installation of a new PM who won't address the climate and biodiversity crises. An opportunity missed - I never expected to contemplate the demise of a Tory government with so little hope in my heart. Nevertheless I confess that I do hope Lab is running a decapitation campaign in Somerset North East. Away from the headlines, I'm hoping that the good folk of Shipley will decide to hand Philip Davies his P45. I’ve argued before that there is the possibility at least of Starmer being at least a bit more left-wing than it may seem. I’ve seen a few potential straws in the wind in this regard, when he’s been clear that the class war isn’t over, which isn’t something he was obliged to say, and also the need to create good jobs. He’s also quite Anglo-facing which is quite handy economically as Anglo is more Keynesian (as opposed to euro-austerity). But another reason, relates to something moby usefully pointed to the other day: the involvement of McSweeney. Moby cited a New Statesman article which highlighted McSweeney’s eagerness to be rid of the left, as they are considered “dangerous”. They didn’t elaborate on what they mean by dangerous, but from a traditional left-wing point of view, politics is more about economic inequality than about culture wars, say. Not that I’m saying one should never fight culture wars, but if prioritised they can detract from the economic inequality thing. Of course, if you move away from the left in the party, the concern is what do you replace it with. One obvious candidate is a return to Blairism, but that doesn’t really sit well with talk of class war and Anglo-centric economics which was more Brown than Blair (who wanted the Euro), and creating lots of good jobs, or indeed starting to nationalise things. Obviously we don’t know till he gets in power, but such talk at least is suggestive of something to the left of Blair. Which then had me wondering: where does McSweeney sit in all this? The New Statesman article Moby found doesn’t really go into it, but in the Times they have been talking for a while about McSweeney’s take on policy, and the difference with Blair. I’ve made a few notes I was planning to fashion into a post, but just briefly now, McSweeney‘s view on Blair doesn’t seem to be that far from mine tbh. He sees Blair as someone who is now very interested in technology as a cure for all our ills, along with backing the liberal middle class graduates rather than the working class, and while McSweeney is on board with the tech, he thinks favouring the middle class doesn’t really solve the problem. I think Blair’s take on tech is interesting, and it was for me notable at the time that Blair called early on for the switch to prioritising giving everyone a single vaccine shot first. But there are issues where he doesn’t see the impact of globalisation, as Alaister Campbell flagged up on his podcast. What matters here is what Starmer thinks though, and according to the Times, he seems to agree more with McSweeney, but we shall see. In the context of your concerns regarding the climate/environmental crisis, I do tend to think that if governments don’t move fast enough, then we will have to depend more on grassroots stuff and the technologists coming up with solutions. There is increasing effort going into numerous different approaches now, and I’ve come across another one the other day which looks rather promising, which I shall post about in a bit… |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on May 24, 2024 13:01:24 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on May 24, 2024 13:10:31 GMT
It's The crofty . Stop, cessation, discontinue, terminate, desist. The English monitor.  I quite like theses it pleases🤔 |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 24, 2024 13:10:40 GMT
Where's Labour's "entitlement creeping in"? All I'm seeing is an almost obsequious sense of humility from Labour front-benchers about taking nothing for granted and having to earn the voters trust. Almost to the point of it being a little overdone and arch at times. ...and now we get the Lab playbook. Lab is remarkably good at sustaining and amplifying doubts and superstitions. Lab has had double-digit poll leads for over a year. No-one seriously doubts that the electorate is thoroughly fed up of this government and that only a hopelessly incompetent or very radical Opposition wouldn't be preferred. No-one is seriously suggesting that Starmer's Lab falls into either of those categories. Only one prediction on the predictions thread doesn't have Lab winning a very comfortable majority, yet UKPR2 contributors are still talking about Ming vases, slippery floors and bacon sandwiches. Starmer could drip ketchup down his shirt whilst eating a bacon sandwich without having to worry about his majority. I'm probably more sceptical than most about VI polls, but even I'll be surprised if I don't wake up to a Lab majority on July 5th, so are UKPR2's Labourite contributors: (a) a thoroughly superstitious bunch; (b) suffering from the ingrained data scepticism that often seems to afflict people without a scientific or mathematical background; (c) campaigning; (d) all of the above? Strange post, given most Labour members/supporters on here are pretty confident of a handsome victory and have said so. As far as I can tell the most sceptical of a landslide are crossbat11 (Labour), Mercian (certainly not Labour) and Jib (implies he may/will vote Labour but not a member). However, excessive gloating is not a good look, so perhaps we are just trying to take it calmly. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 24, 2024 13:13:40 GMT
So, 75 and still counting of Tory MPs skulking off. Is it becoming some sort of record? At what point does all this become an implosion you can’t recover from? Are we not far from it, or is there a long way to go? |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 24, 2024 13:22:56 GMT
So, 75 and still counting of Tory MPs skulking off. Is it becoming some sort of record? At what point does all this become an implosion you can’t recover from? Are we not far from it, or is there a long way to go? There will presumably be a lot more sitting MPs removed by the electorate soon. For comparison 72 Conservative MPs retired before the 1997 General Election, so there was a fair exodus then as well, and 126 Tory MPs were defeated. (figures from the Times guide to the 1997 GE) |
|
