Best Of

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.

But, populists rarely have good solutions.

That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.

The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .

And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.

Lol politics has been doing nothing but dancing to these numpties' tune for the last decade. Other voters are available.

That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.

I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence

I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.

Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o

Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.

We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.

We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.

Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.

(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)

Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.

It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.

This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.

Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.

Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.

Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.

(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).

Yep. Labour should definitely pin the UK energy situation on Miliband. Incredibly high and rising prices being down to him is just the ticket.

I expect Reeves will give in on North Sea licences as economic reality kicks in

What in the last eighteen months makes you think that Reeves has any connection to, or even awareness of, economic reality?

That 34% ethical is interesting in so much as it mirrors the Labour vote in 2024.

I don't believe the question "is Starmer unethical or ethical" is the best question. "Does Starmer appear ethical or unethical" would generate a much sharper divergence

I'd like him to fall on his sword, the level of hatred against the man is off the scale and a distraction for functional government. Some of that contempt is well deserved (he is shockingly bad at politics) but a great deal has been confected by the media due to his demand for a second Referendum and his undermining poor Boris.

Speaking of hatred, Miliband's doing his bit to stir up a little against the evil private sector, who are clearly raising fuel prices for reasons unrelated to any real world events. Ahem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626mdvn6d5o

Feel sorry for those working in petrol stations getting abuse because the green zealot's trying to blame the private sector ahead of a potential government hike in income tax because a moron in America didn't realise starting an unplanned, pointless war in the Middle East had the obvious consequence of a rise in oil prices.

We discussed this yesterday. Are the retailers price gouging? Some said yes, some said they are entitled to increase the retail price of their current stock in anticipation of the increased cost of the next delivery.

We did agree that those abusing minimum wage cashiers at petrol stations deserve their own place in idiot's corner/ Hell.

Besides- the free market selling price of everything is as much as the seller can get away with. Always has been, that's how the system is meant to work. The only question is what mechanisms stop that price being all but infinite.

(Same as the free market buying price of a thing is the lowest the seller can be persuaded/forced to swallow. Those two things don't have to overlap, but when they do, wonderful things can happen.)

Well yes, supply and demand enters the picture. One man's profiteering is another man's sound economics.

It's not quite as simple as that - it's long been known that competition in this sector is rather weak. There's considerable market power and the CMA has been investigating it for some time. In that case profiteering is sound economics.

This is one of those topics where PB is out of touch with public sentiment - just check out the comments on the BBC article. And blaming the government for abusive behaviour from some motorists to retail staff is just...mad.

Public sentiment is they dont like high energy prices.

Milibands policy of raining prices will bite Labour in the arse.

Miliband is the reason British forces didn't take part in the initial strike on Iran which has caused this mess in the first place. He's also advocating the kind of energy that isn't vulnerable to whims of the Iranian regime of Vladimir Putin. In the battle of political narratives, I think he's in a reasonably strong position.

(Though I must say I've been disappointed the government isn't pushing that point more forcefully).

The Government IS trying to push it

However if you listened to Vine R2 yesterday, you will get the dinosaurs of TUFTON STREET for the Oil and Gas lobby totally drown out any hope of a resonable debate.

It's certainly something Labour can, should and I'm sure will focus on befor next GE!

All military targets on Kharg Island obliterated overnight, apparently.

Marines on their way to the region. Looks like this is where the boots on the ground are going in. Which, frankly, makes sense if they are going anywhere.

Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.

Elsewhere, Hegseth geting a serious kicking for his "no quarter" comment. Makes him a war criminal at risk of life imprisonment. Ooops.

You would have thought having grounds troops closer than 2 weeks away would have been a good plan

And then if those troops were getting hammered by missiles youd be moaning who put troops there to get killed ?

What if the aim is to seriously degrade Irans capabilities and then pick off things at their leisure ?

No. I’m not an armchair general.

But not having the marines closer than Japan does suggest a lack of scenario planning. Presumably there is somewhere closer that they could have been located as part of the military build up ahead of the war

It's the entire 31st MEU with the Tripoli, San Diego and New Orleans plus logistics plus aviation plus combat engineering. They can't just put that lot in the Doha Sheraton. They also can't keep 2,000+ of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children on the ships for an indefinite amount of time, they can't put them ashore in a friendly port because fucking havoc will ensue so they aim to get the MEU in theatre just before it's actually required. I'm guessing they didn't think they'd be doing an amphibious assault until the end of last week when the regime inconveniently refused to change and the Madiq Hormuz closed for business.