Best Of

Is enough attention being paid to this conundrum:

1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour
2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one
3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one

Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.

Enlightenment?

There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner.
It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.

Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.

Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.

So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.

60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.

You really have to wonder what is in these files.

So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.

PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?

It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.

He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.

That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.

What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.

Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.

I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.

It's the only place there can be a trial.
Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.

It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead.
Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.

In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation...
https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175

Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

And they call themselves patriots.

My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.

It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.

It doesn't help that Prescott also wielded the scalpel;

https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/james-ball-exclusive-the-error-at-the-heart-of-trumps-bbc-attack/

When does "tightening up a quote for impact and because many viewers have the attention span of a goldfish" become "doctoring"? The second is wrong, no question, but the first is essential if news on TV is going to work.

The obvious but difficult line is "don't change the meaning". So what do you do if the meaning is contested? What do you do if the meaning is pretty obvious, but still contested by shysters?

The problem is, of course, that Trump incited a riot but he and his supporters don't want to admit it.

And to try and conceal that, they indulge in selective quoting of their own, noting the 'peacefully and patriotically' and forgetting the 'fight like hell' bit.

Ultimately, looking at the whole speech, which was his usual rambling and incoherent mess, it's clear he did incite a protest and knew at some level it was likely to turn violent.

While the report could have been more nuanced - and really probably should have been about the advanced mental health problems his style and language displayed - it was actually fair enough and the BBC should certainly not have apologised on the basis of a heavily quote mined report from somebody who is clearly not very trustworthy.

Damn, this is huge.

Stanford Medicine scientists tie lupus to a virus nearly all of us carry
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/11/lupus-epstein-barr.html
One of humanity’s most ubiquitous infectious pathogens bears the blame for the chronic autoimmune condition called systemic lupus erythematosus or, colloquially, lupus, Stanford Medicine investigators and their colleagues have found.

The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), which resides silently inside the bodies of 19 out of 20 Americans, is directly responsible for commandeering what starts out as a minuscule number of immune cells to go rogue and persuade far more of their fellow immune cells to launch a widespread assault on the body’s tissues, the scientists have shown.

The findings were published Nov. 12 in Science Translational Medicine.

“This is the single most impactful finding to emerge from my lab in my entire career,” said William Robinson, MD, PhD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and the study’s senior author. “We think it applies to 100% of lupus cases.”..

I wonder how many other mysterious, intractable diseases like lupus, which are incredible hard to treat, could be prevented by a simple vaccine ?

EBV is implicated in several now.

So Dr. House will find it IS lupus every episode?

Special relationship update.

Bolduan: But when you have British intelligence saying they don't want to share anymore because they are they are concerned that it is illegal what is being done. That is a problem

Jennings: You think I give a rip what some country in Europe thinks…
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1989540329708818765

Hermer has fucked our relationship with the US to protect Venezuelan drug traffickers. It's playing very, very poorly in the US. One of the best things about getting rid of Starmer is that Hermer will get booted out with him.

Yes, shocking that we don't want to collaborate with extra-judicial killing.
Otherwise known as murder.

That's never stopped us before. Obama was happily droning schools and weddings in Iraq and Afghanistan and we provided material support for that campaign.

Get real, ridding the world of Venezuelan drug traffickers is a net positive for the world, destabilising Maduro is a net positive for the world and depriving him of his cut from drug trafficking is a net positive for the world.

Replace Trump with Obama and you would absolutely support these strikes against awf drug gangs profiteering off misery and keeping Maduro in power.

You and liberals don't like the messenger. That's fine but in the real world America has got to deal with its hugely porous border and this is how to do it. I wish we started taking their example for controlling our borders and turning around the boats with force and landing them 12 miles off the coast of Africa.

Nope.

Your glib one word answer tells me I'm right and you just can't admit it.

No, you're absolutely wrong.
For a start, I criticised Obama's drone strike back in the day, so the ad hom (well done for resorting to that, btw) is as misplaced as it is lazy.

There is no legal justification for the current killings.
As several GOP Senators agree.

It sets an enormously dangerous precedent, well beyond even the dodgy drone strikes from previous administrations.

"Got to in the real world" isn't law - it's you saying that Trump can kill anyone he likes outside of the law.

Half of all UK jobs shed since Labour came to power are among under-25s

With the government under fire before the autumn budget, Guardian analysis shows the dramatic leap in UK unemployment to the highest levels since the Covid pandemic is being fuelled by a youth jobs crisis.

As many as 46% of the 170,000 jobs lost from company payrolls since June last year are from those under the age of 25 – the equivalent of more than 150 jobs lost per day.

Youth unemployment has increased from 14.8% a year ago to 15.3%, the highest level outside the Covid pandemic since 2015, and more than three times the headline jobless rate for people over the age of 16. Long-term youth joblessness is also at a decade high.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/15/half-of-all-uk-jobs-shed-since-labour-came-to-power-are-among-under-25s

Who could have foreseen this issue.

Anyone who studies Labour's history. They leave office with fewer jobs than they inherited. It's a side-effect of their broken business model.

Youth unemployment was no longer a thing under the Tories.

Hmm - do we have employment rate data for the young? We've discussed in detail on PB why unemployment isn't the full picture - indeed the latest employment and inactivity figures look quite good for the working population as a whole.

If anyone can be bothered: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/employmentunemploymentandeconomicinactivitybyagegroupseasonallyadjusteda05sa

And statista's summary of that data have inactivity falling for the young since Labour got into power: https://www.statista.com/statistics/382428/uk-economic-inactivity-rate-by-age/?srsltid=AfmBOoomqBMlDwjTO_IkIbCR-Dcm66yjivBQ_prWQXfjyhPo7KFgMeMk

I have to admit, very regretfully, that all my late teen/early twenties relatives....... grandchildren, great-nephews etc ........ are having trouble getting onto the bottom rungs of the employment ladder. The only one who is working has a zero-hours job with few, if any, prospects of advancement.
This isn't why I voted Labour

It is quite interesting - there's definitely been a big uptick in unemployment for young people, but the inactivity rate is down and the the employment rate is stable (or even a bit up, depending on where you measure from). So it would appear the reason for the change in the labour market is more young people entering the workforce over the last year or so.

I can't think of a reason for that. Is the number of students dropping at the moment?

My granddaughter, who graduated this year, has said none of her year have gained employment yet

My niece tells me that her son, who graduates this year is applying for dozens of jobs. So far, unsuccessfully. His cousin, my younger grandson has gone to Oz. Temporarily, permanently? Who knows.

Same story with my granddaughter

I've the opposite problem. Nearly all of my son's friends have gone off and got jobs, normally starting at £100k+, but he is doing a BPhil for 2 more years at very considerable expense. So things could be worse!

What graduate job starts at £100k+? Other than maybe commercial barrister or Goldman Sachs banker?

There are IT jobs well in excess of £100k (multi times) for the right graduates.

Google engineers start at £62k
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/Google-Software-Engineer-New-Grad-Salaries-E9079_D_KO7,33.htm


'An entry level position recruit at Amazon can expect to receive a £75,000 salary with a £15,000 bonus, according to a research from Emolument.com, a salary benchmarking site.'

'Apple junior employees typically get a salary of £72,000 with a potential £11,000 bonus on top.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/amazon-tops-list-of-the-best-paying-tech-firms-for-junior-employees-a7007371.html

ML / AI grads with a PhD are on a lot more than £100k.

That is PhD grads, DavidL was saying undergrads who finished their degree

My son with his 2:1 in programming is working in quality control for Sony on minimum wage. It must be different in Scotland.

Yes but even in London I can find barely any jobs starting on over £100k for first graduate job

A salary of £100k would put in the 96th percentile. Sometimes PB goes a bit silly when it comes to money.