The Politics Thread 2020

[Bob The Badger]

19 minutes ago, Highgate said:

So do you like him or not?  

I can hardly be accused of being a Biden fan. I think he is a really poor candidate.  And he's definitely not 'the left' and neither is the Democratic Party establishment.

What candidate should they have chosen from the 20 or so in the primary race, or even outside the race.  Who would have stood the best chance of defeating Trump ?

Do I underestimate him?  He understands his voter, he seems to know what they want and tries to give them exactly that....or least give the impression that he is doing so.  He's has spectacularly sidelined the media for a large part of his presidency to a point where a large part of the US now don't believe a word they hear from most media sources.  He is a skilled reality TV star,  none of those skills make him suitable to be a good president.  In what areas do you think I underestimate him ?

The answer to that is Biden, presuming he doesn't start stumbling over his words more.

And btw, he has always had that rep, so it's not exactly new, it just *seems* like it be be worsening.

That's why the Dems swung behind him.

Biden is very popular with the Black vote and they matter in winning an election...a lot.

The Brown vote was behind Sanders, but that doesn't matter because they will just shift allegiance to anybody who isn't Trump. Whereas the Black vote just stay at home if they aren't engaged - which hurt Hillary.

Also, Biden is working class and he will get the blue collar worker behind him in key battleground States like his home one of Pennsylvania, and Ohio and Michigan, whereas most of the others would struggle, especially Warren, Sander and Buttigieg. 

You clearly want to understand what's going on @Highgate and I commend you for that. I just wish everybody did.

I rarely comment on UK politics other than on generalities like not caring for Johnson because I don't feel informed enough about policy and what it's like to live there anymore.

However, some of the stuff being posted in this thread about the US is utterly bizarre and demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding and grasp of the facts.

Such is life I guess.

[Norman]

3 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

He fires them all though.

So is he responsible for the economy or not then? 

Can't work both ways? 

[Highgate]

3 minutes ago, Norman said:

Then don't be writing posts blaming Boris or anyone in in the future during a recession. 

Because it would be coming anyway. Doesn't matter what you do. Apparently.

I tend not to talk about British politics at all unless it directly involves Ireland like the Brexit debate did. 

I've seen enough of Boris to know that I wouldn't trust him, but I really don't know enough about British politics to know whether the Tories or Labour have better economic strategies.  That's how it will remain I suspect. 

[LeedsCityRam]

42 minutes ago, Archied said:

Was beginning to think I was alone when banging on about reporting of death numbers for ages now ,,, sorry but it’s so obtuse that you start to wonder wtf is going on , how hard is it to do a simple graph where deaths are logged by the day they happened which updates every time a death is logged ,? That way you have a constant running graph that shows true daily death tolls as they are recorded 

It's a sad reflection on our national media outlets that this situation is still continuing. The 'daily death figures' are nothing of the sort, they provide no insight into how we're doing vs last week/2 weeks ago and the absence of any care home statistics is just shocking. How ministers are allowed to sidestep questions, shrug their shoulders & make meaningless promises is beyond me. A proper media should be holding these amateurs to account & calling them out.

Next couple of weeks should be interesting. As the Med countries start to relax lockdowns, this Government will have some serious questions to answer about strategy going forward. The progress or lack of it should become apparent at that point. To think we have the advantages of a) being an island & b) not being part of the Schengen Agreement, the situation here particularly compared to Germany, Holland and the Scandanavian countries is an utter disgrace.

[Bob The Badger]

16 minutes ago, Highgate said:

However, if we are to take Trump at his word, then he clearly doesn't understand how a simple thing like tariffs work. 

Yep.

He senior economic advisor strongly suggested he didn't impose tariffs but he did anyway. The guy was gone a week or so later.

Trump came out and said, contrary to the thinking of every economist in the world, that 'trade wars are easy to in'

His supporters genuinely believe that they are taking money of China with the tariffs because that is what he's told them

Er, except all the soy farmers who are living on subsidies or have closed down because their China market evaporated of course.  

[Highgate]

10 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

The answer to that is Biden, presuming he doesn't start stumbling over his words more.And btw, he has always had that rep, so it's not exactly new, it just *seems* like it be be worsening.That's why the Dems swung behind him.Biden is very popular with the Black vote and they matter in winning an election...a lot.The Brown vote was behind Sanders, but that doesn't matter because they will just shift allegiance to anybody who isn't Trump. Whereas the Black vote just stay at home if they aren't engaged - which hurt Hillary.Also, Biden is working class and he will get the blue collar worker behind him in key battleground States like his home one of Pennsylvania, and Ohio and Michigan, whereas most of the others would struggle, especially Warren, Sander and Buttigieg. You clearly want to understand what's going on @Highgate and I commend you for that. I just wish everybody did.I rarely comment on UK politics other than on generalities like not caring for Johnson because I don't feel informed enough about policy and what it's like to live there anymore.However, some of the stuff being posted in this thread about the US is utterly bizarre and demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding and grasp of the facts .Such is life I guess.

The question I was directing to @Angry Ram who is of the opinion that the Democratic Party have decreased their chances in the Presidential election by being set to nominate Biden.  So I was wondering who he thinks they should have chosen instead.  Although to be honest I don't have a good answer myself.  Is Biden their best bet to beat Trump ?  The polls suggested so but as you are very well aware, he could implode, so that's a risk.

Why is the Black Vote ( who are the most anti Trump - so they must be commended for that ? )  so resolutely behind Biden?  I realize being Obama's VP for so long is going to be in his favour, but his own political record doesn't exactly mark him out as a politician particularly concerned with civil rights or racial equality.  Which Democratic politician would have refused Obama's request to be his VP?  Practically none I would say, then why such affection for Biden among black voters?  Cory Brooker must have been somewhat frustrated ....and Bernie has actually been photographed campaigning with Martin Luther King, albeit in the background. Harris' unpopularity on the other hand isn't surprising given her record as a prosecutor.  It's really Biden's popularity with black voters that has gotten him the nomination. 

[Angry Ram]

56 minutes ago, Highgate said:

So do you like him or not?  

I can hardly be accused of being a Biden fan. I think he is a really poor candidate.  And he's definitely not 'the left' and neither is the Democratic Party establishment.

What candidate should they have chosen from the 20 or so in the primary race, or even outside the race.  Who would have stood the best chance of defeating Trump ?

Do I underestimate him?  He understands his voter, he seems to know what they want and tries to give them exactly that....or least give the impression that he is doing so.  He's has spectacularly sidelined the media for a large part of his presidency to a point where a large part of the US now don't believe a word they hear from most media sources.  He is a skilled reality TV star,  none of those skills make him suitable to be a good president.  In what areas do you think I underestimate him ?

I have no time for him as a person, no. Can’t say I would enjoy a few beers with him but that is beside the point.

None of the 20 were any good. Embarrassing really.

Underestimating him has nothing to do with being a good or bad president. All too often he gets written off as a joke but he is president in case you missed it. The Dems laughed at him last time but Jo public believed him, or at least Jo public where it mattered. Or did not trust Hilary..

The virus could be the swinger.. If it bombs on him, then maybe Biden might sneak it. I speak to a lot of yanks and once you get by the initial hesitation to say anything positive about him, there are surprisingly many who will support him even in traditional Trump hating states. 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

It's a sad reflection on our national media outlets that this situation is still continuing. The 'daily death figures' are nothing of the sort, they provide no insight into how we're doing vs last week/2 weeks ago and the absence of any care home statistics is just shocking. How ministers are allowed to sidestep questions, shrug their shoulders & make meaningless promises is beyond me. A proper media should be holding these amateurs to account & calling them out.

Next couple of weeks should be interesting. As the Med countries start to relax lockdowns, this Government will have some serious questions to answer about strategy going forward. The progress or lack of it should become apparent at that point. To think we have the advantages of a) being an island & b) not being part of the Schengen Agreement, the situation here particularly compared to Germany, Holland and the Scandanavian countries is an utter disgrace.

Think it was on Talk Radio the other day that the general public have more trust in Matt Hancock than in the mainstream media.

That should have alarm bells ringing for them.

They wont care though, they will just carry on chasing clickbait headlines.

 

[Highgate]

7 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

I have no time for him as a person, no. Can’t say I would enjoy a few beers with him but that is beside the point.

None of the 20 were any good. Embarrassing really.

I think that's incredibly harsh....but I suspect you would be a natural Republican voter, so maybe your opinion on Democrats isn't that surprising.  I thought all of the Republican candidates last time round where various shades of awful, with Trump and Cruz being the worst of the bunch.

11 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Underestimating him has nothing to do with being a good or bad president. All too often he gets written off as a joke but he is president in case you missed it. The Dems laughed at him last time but Jo public believed him, or at least Jo public where it mattered. Or did not trust Hilary..

The virus could be the swinger.. If it bombs on him, then maybe Biden might sneak it. I speak to a lot of yanks and once you get by the initial hesitation to say anything positive about him, there are surprisingly many who will support him even in traditional Trump hating states. 

Unless we are trying to estimate his ability as a president of course...which seems quite relevant.  I don't underestimate his ability as a campaigner.  Not this time anyway. I did in 2016.  He clearly could win again. I have said that I don't rate him as a debater, so I don't think any debate performances against Biden are likely to win him many new voters. 

I haven't missed that he is president. I don't think people are writing him off as a joke (the fact remains that he has done many things that are popular with his voters) but merely laughing at the frequent stupid things he does and says, which is a natural reaction after all.  I realize that he has a decent chance of winning the election (although Biden is the favourite for me) and I agree that the virus and how it plays out will be crucial. 

[Tamworthram]

50 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

It's a sad reflection on our national media outlets that this situation is still continuing. The 'daily death figures' are nothing of the sort, they provide no insight into how we're doing vs last week/2 weeks ago and the absence of any care home statistics is just shocking. How ministers are allowed to sidestep questions, shrug their shoulders & make meaningless promises is beyond me. A proper media should be holding these amateurs to account & calling them out.

Next couple of weeks should be interesting. As the Med countries start to relax lockdowns, this Government will have some serious questions to answer about strategy going forward. The progress or lack of it should become apparent at that point. To think we have the advantages of a) being an island & b) not being part of the Schengen Agreement, the situation here particularly compared to Germany, Holland and the Scandanavian countries is an utter disgrace.

I'm not sure I would quite describe it as an utter disgrace just yet (apart from the care home crisis) and, as has been discussed at length, I'm not sure you can really compare countries that easily as there are far too many variables not least - what is actually being counted for each country. However, it's interesting that you have called out The Netherlands who's mortality rate per million of population is 261. Not massively less than the UK at 305. What about Spain, Italy and France? Belgium also 612 deaths per million of population (although I believe there figures do include care homes. I'm not sure about the others which reinforces the point I made about are we all counting the same things).

If we can compare countries, I'd be more interested in the likes of Poland (14 deaths per million), Austria (60), Denmark (73), Czechia (21), Portugal (89) Norway (37) but, as I say it's probably far too complicated to do a direct comparison.

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

The question I was directing to @Angry Ram who is of the opinion that the Democratic Party have decreased their chances in the Presidential election by being set to nominate Biden.  So I was wondering who he thinks they should have chosen instead.  Although to be honest I don't have a good answer myself.  Is Biden their best bet to beat Trump ?  The polls suggested so but as you are very well aware, he could implode, so that's a risk.

Why is the Black Vote ( who are the most anti Trump - so they must be commended for that ? )  so resolutely behind Biden?  I realize being Obama's VP for so long is going to be in his favour, but his own political record doesn't exactly mark him out as a politician particularly concerned with civil rights or racial equality.  Which Democratic politician would have refused Obama's request to be his VP?  Practically none I would say, then why such affection for Biden among black voters?  Cory Brooker must have been somewhat frustrated ....and Bernie has actually been photographed campaigning with Martin Luther King, albeit in the background. Harris' unpopularity on the other hand isn't surprising given her record as a prosecutor.  It's really Biden's popularity with black voters that has gotten him the nomination. 

Yep, pretty much just that.

8 years of constant association to a many they love will do that.

Who would have been better?

In terms of beating Trump as opposed to policy, then nobody with that recurring caveat that he keeps it together.

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, Angry Ram said:

I have no time for him as a person, no. Can’t say I would enjoy a few beers with him but that is beside the point.

None of the 20 were any good. Embarrassing really.

Underestimating him has nothing to do with being a good or bad president. All too often he gets written off as a joke but he is president in case you missed it. The Dems laughed at him last time but Jo public believed him, or at least Jo public where it mattered. Or did not trust Hilary..

The virus could be the swinger.. If it bombs on him, then maybe Biden might sneak it. I speak to a lot of yanks and once you get by the initial hesitation to say anything positive about him, there are surprisingly many who will support him even in traditional Trump hating states. 

People say that pretty much every election, that the candidates suck.

They were certainly saying it with the Reps in 2016.

It was also the same with the Dems in 08 when Obama ran.

Similarly, there was much head shaking that the Reps could only field Romney and McCain against Obama.

Both seasoned politicians with little charisma and not much chance of dragging away any Democratic voters.

I think Dem supporters laughed at him, sure. But I don't think the Party did.

OTOH, they did take him lightly and Clinton made some serious errors in campaigning that cost her dearly, maybe because of that.

A good proportion of people didn't trust HC on both sides of the aisle, me included.

She seemed like a great candidate on paper - and in fairness she did crush Trump in the popular vote by over 3 million - but in reality she was about the only lleading Dem who could have lost to Trump.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

So is he responsible for the economy or not then? 

Can't work both ways? 

Trump has it both ways though. If America benefits from a booming stock market, it's down to him, despite the fact that the growth that was in place before he came to power merely continued unabated. If America is the world's Coronavirus hotspot, it's Obama's fault that Trump didn't replenish supplies over the three years of his tenure (to say nothing of sacking the Pandemic Task Force to save a few dollars).

[Bob The Badger]

13 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Trump has it both ways though. If America benefits from a booming stock market, it's down to him, despite the fact that the growth that was in place before he came to power merely continued unabated. If America is the world's Coronavirus hotspot, it's Obama's fault that Trump didn't replenish supplies over the three years of his tenure (to say nothing of sacking the Pandemic Task Force to save a few dollars).

Trump has blamed the broken system he inherited for the coronavirus crisis dozens of times on Obama, even though he dismantled the pandemic response team Obama set up after Ebola to deal with just such a future crisis.

He has also said that they inherited a faulty system for testing and that was why they took so long to get up and running.

The fact that it's a novel virus and as such there can't have been any test kits is irrelevant to him.

As someone once said, truth is the first casualty of war. And in his mind, Trump has been at war since he won the nomination.

In all honesty, I actually don't think he even knows he's lying half the time. 

[LeedsCityRam]

5 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

The government might be doing it to avoid criticism or, it could actually be because there are too many variables to reasonably compare. Maybe I'm less cynical or more naive. I agree about being an island should be an advantage but then there are countries right next to each other on mainland Europe with big variations. I also guess, once it was here, it was too late to shut ourselves off from the rest of Europe.

Yes, you could compare us with Germany but, also why not compare us with Belgium? Even allowing for the fact they're including care homes their figure are grim. Or the Netherlands if they're not counting care homes? Or what about France? Spain may not be as wealthy as the UK but I'm not sure they're amongst the world's poorest nations. 

I just think we don't know enough to describe it as an utter disgrace (again, apart from the care home situation). We don't know if another political party would have dealt with it any differently and achieved a better outcome. 

I'm happy to say I've managed to avoid Piers Morgan so I have no idea what he's been ranting about. It is of course a lot easier to criticise with the benefit of hindsight and when it's not you having to make some very difficult decisions. 

 

I think when we also consider the ridiculous lack of testing and the continued scarcity of PPE for NHS staff (along with related NHS staff deaths), its difficult to describe the Government's handling of this outbreak in any other terms.

We saw the pictures from Wuhan in Jan, we saw the pictures from Lombardy in late Feb/early March but took no action at all to restrict travel from those areas or require mandatory quarantines. Australia & New Zealand both did & have now largely eliminated it from their countries. Re your point about France & Spain, due to Schengen they would have had extreme difficulty stopping people crossing the border until the situation reached critical (and so superseding the political fallout from abandoning a key EU 'freedom')

Not sure we can realistically consider whether another political party would have done better, especially given Labour & Lib Dems are rebuilding. It doesnt mean the incumbent Government should escape criticism, they won the Election, its their job to manage the situation properly. The SNP certainly appear to be managing the crisis in Scotland a much more grown up & transparent way.

[Tamworthram]

10 hours ago, LeedsCityRam said:

I think when we also consider the ridiculous lack of testing and the continued scarcity of PPE for NHS staff (along with related NHS staff deaths), its difficult to describe the Government's handling of this outbreak in any other terms.

We saw the pictures from Wuhan in Jan, we saw the pictures from Lombardy in late Feb/early March but took no action at all to restrict travel from those areas or require mandatory quarantines. Australia & New Zealand both did & have now largely eliminated it from their countries. Re your point about France & Spain, due to Schengen they would have had extreme difficulty stopping people crossing the border until the situation reached critical (and so superseding the political fallout from abandoning a key EU 'freedom')

Not sure we can realistically consider whether another political party would have done better, especially given Labour & Lib Dems are rebuilding. It doesnt mean the incumbent Government should escape criticism, they won the Election, its their job to manage the situation properly. The SNP certainly appear to be managing the crisis in Scotland a much more grown up & transparent way.

Fair enough and good points. Whilst it will be too late for this time around I just hope there will be some kind of enquiry in to the way it was all handled and those in power very much forgiven for making difficult and unpopular decisions if it can be seen there was a fair rationale behind their actions and it they were based on sound scientific advice but also held to account if they were slow to act or negligent when again, there was reasonable evidence at the time that they should have acted differently or quicker (PPE and care homes are the two that stand out for me). But, there will come a time for that and, unless it’s going to help the way the situation is handled going forward (which I guess it might) now is perhaps not the time.

[Norman]

13 hours ago, Eddie said:

Trump has it both ways though. If America benefits from a booming stock market, it's down to him, despite the fact that the growth that was in place before he came to power merely continued unabated. If America is the world's Coronavirus hotspot, it's Obama's fault that Trump didn't replenish supplies over the three years of his tenure (to say nothing of sacking the Pandemic Task Force to save a few dollars).

Not the point I asked. But then I forgive you in your old age, Biden. 

I mean, Eddie. 

[Gritstone Ram]

10 hours ago, LeedsCityRam said:

I think when we also consider the ridiculous lack of testing and the continued scarcity of PPE for NHS staff (along with related NHS staff deaths), its difficult to describe the Government's handling of this outbreak in any other terms.

We saw the pictures from Wuhan in Jan, we saw the pictures from Lombardy in late Feb/early March but took no action at all to restrict travel from those areas or require mandatory quarantines. Australia & New Zealand both did & have now largely eliminated it from their countries. Re your point about France & Spain, due to Schengen they would have had extreme difficulty stopping people crossing the border until the situation reached critical (and so superseding the political fallout from abandoning a key EU 'freedom')

Not sure we can realistically consider whether another political party would have done better, especially given Labour & Lib Dems are rebuilding. It doesnt mean the incumbent Government should escape criticism, they won the Election, its their job to manage the situation properly. The SNP certainly appear to be managing the crisis in Scotland a much more grown up & transparent way.

I am sure I saw WHO advise at the end of February saying that travel restrictions were not advisable.

https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak/

What advice should we listen to?

Scotland is different because the outbreak was at different stages throughout the UK with London starting first. Scotland had a lot more notice.

[GboroRam]

17 hours ago, Uptherams said:

As others have highlighted, the compass is more tuned to a US demographic. As I'm a centrist, tending to lean left on policy but slightly right of centre on implementation and practicality. 

You can plot things wherever you like. It doesn't make a difference to me raining on the far left parade ??

Answering my own question, because nobody else is interested - I'd pitch Boris's Tories in the blue, close to the centre.

I'd pitch Corbyn well into the green.

I think those people who claim Labour are too left wing want Sir Keir to pitch Labour in the green close to the centre.

Why do we need two political parties mostly taking the same ground?

[FindernRam]

27 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Why do we need two political parties mostly taking the same ground?

For an effective government in our tradition of Power and Opposition, you don't need two in the same space. 

However for years the British people have demonstrated at the ballot box that they do not like (or mistrust) extreme policies, thus if a Party wants power they have to attract the centre based voter (whether they, the party, actually believe the manifesto or not).

Hence the rush to the centre!

Ironically for years ( 60's to 90's) US politics was pretty much centre based and only minor policy differences distinguished the parties, basically it was biggest budget won!