The Politics Thread 2020

[BenTheFox]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

We might as well view Ben the 20 year old Geography undergraduate as a Cuban sleeper agent right now.

[Finnaldo]

25 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Latest poll

Not good for Keith again

 

 

Better for Starmer than other polls in my opinion, polling close to 40 given the vaccine bounce is pretty good ground, we’ve seen last year how quickly good will can disintegrate and there’s not much for him to do than take the back seat at the moment.

 

That said, most polls are closer to 30 which won’t be encouraging for Labour. 

Edited 16 March 2021 by Finnaldo

[UpTheLeagueFox]

10 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Better for Starmer than other polls in my opinion, polling close to 40 given the vaccine bounce is pretty good ground, we’ve seen last year how quickly good will can disintegrate and there’s not much for him to do than take the back seat at the moment.

 

That said, most polls are closer to 30 which won’t be encouraging for Labour. 

Vaccine bounce not working in this one today.

Still 7 points though.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

How much is MattP paying you @UpTheLeagueFox?

[UpTheLeagueFox]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

How much is MattP paying you @UpTheLeagueFox?

Whatever happened to MattP?

 

[Carl the Llama]

12 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Whatever happened to MattP?

 

Not 100% sure, think I missed a development or two while I was having my own little flounce.

[Finnaldo]

18 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Whatever happened to MattP?

 

Asked himself to be permabanned after some argument I can’t even remember was on, came back on a burner account over Christmas to send his best wishes, he’s not been back since.

[Kopfkino]

I wish I’d got the 13/8 Labour hold Hartlepool earlier in the day

[Alf Bentley]

15 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

I wish I’d got the 13/8 Labour hold Hartlepool earlier in the day

 

Are you confident that it will be a Labour hold, then?

 

Because of the small Con-Lab swing since 2019? Because of constituency history or low turnout? Because a lot of Brexit Party votes will return to Lab, not go to Tories?

 

I'm not challenging your view, just curious. I've little idea how it'll go, but would expect it to be close....but might be quite wrong.

[Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Are you confident that it will be a Labour hold, then?

 

Because of the small Con-Lab swing since 2019? Because of constituency history or low turnout? Because a lot of Brexit Party votes will return to Lab, not go to Tories?

 

I'm not challenging your view, just curious. I've little idea how it'll go, but would expect it to be close....but might be quite wrong.

Not confident but I’d say at this moment (a candidate like Laura Pidcock would have me running a mile) it’s, at worst, 50:50 so odds with implied probability of 38% is value and they’re unlikely to ever be longer.

 

Governments don’t often gain in by-elections but you could argue they don’t often get one tee’d up for them like this looks to be. But I just think Labour’s vote here is likely to be much stickier with a low turnout. I don’t see the motivation to go out and vote Conservative in a by-election here when Brexit’s salience is reduced and the noise around it has gone. The Brexit Party voters didn’t vote Conservative for a reason last time so what is going to compel them to in a by-election this time around. If someone’s vote in 2019 was evidently a single issue vote and they didn’t choose the option that was the best vote for that single issue, it’s going to take something to move them over in this instance and that trigger isn’t there for me.
 

The example of what could happen is Copeland in 2017 but Theresa May had a best PM lead in the 30s at the time and riding high. Whilst the government might be doing alright at the moment, and in 2 months time there will be more of a feel good factor around, I don’t expect it will be enough to get people to want to vote for them in a by-election. 

[The whole world smiles]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Are you confident that it will be a Labour hold, then?

 

Because of the small Con-Lab swing since 2019? Because of constituency history or low turnout? Because a lot of Brexit Party votes will return to Lab, not go to Tories?

 

I'm not challenging your view, just curious. I've little idea how it'll go, but would expect it to be close....but might be quite wrong.

Stephen Bush (who knows his onions) thinks it will be a labour hold - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/polling/2021/03/who-ll-win-hartlepool-election

[Alf Bentley]

Outstandingly perceptive (and long) article about "Boris": https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/mar/18/all-hail-the-clown-king-how-boris-johnson-made-it-by-playing-the-fool?fbclid=IwAR1f--rWsf6ICoa-kszAg0jAHY6xQIKRPMf9u3U2-_7hFoJzZAvkVrb6U1M

 

Although the writer clearly views him as a dangerous man to have as PM, but the article isn't a hatchet job. 

The writer does a much better job than most in trying to pin down Johnson's appeal, as well as his danger.

 

But I'm concerned to note that Johnson seems to have started to be able to "do serious" in speeches/interviews. Previously, even during the past year, he had seemed incapable of that.

As a feel-good entertainer, he couldn't keep it straight even when issues were deadly serious. He felt an instinctive need to throw in some comedy or ridiculously inappropriate over-optimism. I think folk were starting to see through his act.

 

But now, if he can credibly "do serious" and has the recent positive of the vaccine rollout overshadowing negative memories of the previous year's fiascos, he could retain popularity, couldn't he?

Particularly if there's some sort of economic recovery over 1-2 years, if things continue to go badly in the EU and if he's able to summon up some fake "wartime spirit" whereby austerity is necessary, to selectively throw money at investments in marginals and to weaponise patriotism, perhaps via post-Brexit disputes with the EU etc.

 

He's a slippery customer who has got away with an awful lot before - not least being sacked twice for lying, getting credit for other people's projects (Olympics, Boris Bikes), his own projects ending in fiasco (Boris Island airport, Garden Bridge) and being widely viewed, even by many Tories, as an appalling Foreign Secretary.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I'm concerned to note that Johnson seems to have started to be able to "do serious" in speeches/interviews. Previously, even during the past year, he had seemed incapable of that.

Why are you concerned? Surely if the Prime Minister is getting better that has to be a good thing for the country, no?

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Why are you concerned? Surely if the Prime Minister is getting better that has to be a good thing for the country, no?

I would say it's rather a question of intent.

 

History is full of leaders who have been very "good" at what they do - that's not necessarily always been a good thing in the long run for the countries they led.

[Alf Bentley]

20 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Why are you concerned? Surely if the Prime Minister is getting better that has to be a good thing for the country, no?

 

@leicsmac has partly answered for me.

 

Of course, for the country's sake I'd have much preferred the PM not to have presided over a shambles last year, am glad that the Govt record on vaccination is infinitely better, putting the EU to shame - and it's better to have a PM who can address serious issues seriously.

 

But there's public image, there's electoral politics and there's policy in power:

- Johnson seems to have learned to improve his public image by learning to "do serious".

- That is good for his/Tory electoral politics. His personal ratings were tanking before, mainly due to Covid policy failings, but partly because of his inappropriately optimistic and jokey persona in the face of a crisis (that persona having been a part of his success in less critical times).

- I consider it bad news for the country long-term if BJ's ability to "do serious" increases the chances of the Tories & BJ staying in power to implement their policies beyond 2024, so that concerns me. No doubt you disagree. 

 

Based on past record and hard decisions to come, I'd expect continued Tory Govt to mean more austerity, inequality, deprivation, social strife, tensions with EU, tensions in Scotland & N. Ireland, run-down local services, centralization of power and undermining of democracy (as with prorogation & the current bill limiting protest). I might be wrong about some or all of that - and some of those concerns relate to the party and circumstances, not BJ personally (he likes to be popular so might not be keen on austerity, but might be forced into it by his party & by the need for hard decisions in difficult circumstances). On a personal level, I see BJ as not especially right-wing or even political, but dangerously amoral (not a criticism I'd have made of any previous Tory leader) - someone who'll do anything that's in his personal interests, so not a suitable man to be PM in challenging times.

 

 

[Claridge]

On 17/03/2021 at 14:12, Kopfkino said:

Not confident but I’d say at this moment (a candidate like Laura Pidcock would have me running a mile) it’s, at worst, 50:50 so odds with implied probability of 38% is value and they’re unlikely to ever be longer.

 

Governments don’t often gain in by-elections but you could argue they don’t often get one tee’d up for them like this looks to be. But I just think Labour’s vote here is likely to be much stickier with a low turnout. I don’t see the motivation to go out and vote Conservative in a by-election here when Brexit’s salience is reduced and the noise around it has gone. The Brexit Party voters didn’t vote Conservative for a reason last time so what is going to compel them to in a by-election this time around. If someone’s vote in 2019 was evidently a single issue vote and they didn’t choose the option that was the best vote for that single issue, it’s going to take something to move them over in this instance and that trigger isn’t there for me.
 

The example of what could happen is Copeland in 2017 but Theresa May had a best PM lead in the 30s at the time and riding high. Whilst the government might be doing alright at the moment, and in 2 months time there will be more of a feel good factor around, I don’t expect it will be enough to get people to want to vote for them in a by-election. 

Can’t think of a single reason why anyone would go out to vote labour in this by- election either

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

- I consider it bad news for the country long-term if BJ's ability to "do serious" increases the chances of the Tories & BJ staying in power to implement their policies beyond 2024, so that concerns me. No doubt you disagree. 

Tbh it doesn't really bother me who's in power, I'll just crack on regardless. You gain on some things and lose on others, whoever is in charge. Maybe that's a selfish viewpoint but hey ho.

[Spudulike]

Sounds like it's the end for Nicola Krankie. 

[Beechey]

Oh dearie me.

[Beechey]

[Leicester_Loyal]

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Tbh it doesn't really bother me who's in power, I'll just crack on regardless. You gain on some things and lose on others, whoever is in charge. Maybe that's a selfish viewpoint but hey ho.

 

I don't expect to gain or lose a lot on a personal level whoever is in power.....and a Lab PM will do some shite stuff, too (yes, thanks for Iraq, PFI, soundbite bullshit & bottling electoral reform, Mr. Blair!)

More a case of feeling concerned at the sort of country we end up with.....but that concern might be misplaced - and I know some other folk get concerned at the prospect of a Lab govt.

 

Life goes on anyway (until it stops ) - and personal happiness has more to do with personal circumstances & life events than who's in Govt. 

- Probably the most miserable period of my life, on a personal level, was under Callaghan....not Uncle Jim's fault

- I had the absolute best years of my life throughout the Thatcher & Major eras.....no credit to Satanic Maggie or the grey pea-gobbler

- Blair/Brown was alright for me, but the Cameron era was utter shite (personal events, not Oily Dave's fault), life improved under May & is mainly shite under BJ due to Covid & (necessary) lockdown 

[RoboFox]

The right-wing Twitter army are snowflaking out and calling for Ian Hislop to be cancelled because he's absolutely bang on.

 

 

[Parafox]

5 hours ago, RoboFox said:

The right-wing Twitter army are snowflaking out and calling for Ian Hislop to be cancelled because he's absolutely bang on.

 

 

And in the process, they've Americanised it which makes it even more frustrating. Why? To look more "statesmanlike". 

Do Boris, Hancock et al look like statesmen?

If Labour get power will they change the colour theme?

I get the cost of the tech side but it should have stopped there.

Edited 19 March 2021 by Parafox

[katieakita]

If the opposition parties have anything about them they should be all over the Post Office scandal which will blow up this week highlighting BIG corruption, incompetence and cronyism and the numerous empty promises from HMG for over a decade. A 100% Government owned business run into insolvency , jobs for mates and contempt for the law.