Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
The HOL needs either abolitioning or elected on a fair bases, and not a place for politicians to retire to and earn £300 a day
The allowance is paid on the basis of attendance and there is no reason why we should not have experienced elder statesmen in our upper house.
Make the Lords into an elected Senate like the US and it would also seek to be able to block Bills permanently, not merely delay as the Lords does now and we would end up with the same legislative deadlock the US has if a different party controls the House and Senate
That could work. The Australian Senate has 1911 House of Lords powers, IIRC
The US system appears designed to cope with the potential insanity of any of its three legs by making sure the others can always stop anything happening.
SCOTUS gave itself far too much power with Marbury v Madison. Essentially the way any justice interprets the constitution can override both the president and congress; and when you have six federalists in there like now.... Thankfully SCOTUK did not use a similar tactic when deciding Miller II, for all it's faults Parliament should always be at the top of the tree - which Miller II affirmed.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
The HOL needs either abolitioning or elected on a fair bases, and not a place for politicians to retire to and earn £300 a day
The allowance is paid on the basis of attendance and there is no reason why we should not have experienced elder statesmen in our upper house.
Make the Lords into an elected Senate like the US and it would also seek to be able to block Bills permanently, not merely delay as the Lords does now and we would end up with the same legislative deadlock the US has if a different party controls the House and Senate
The US seems to have got by quite well without a House of Lords. I don't see them rushing to implement it. Occasionally a check and balance may get in the way of the executive. As we saw in January and last week, that's not always a bad thing.
The US hardly ever gets any significant legislation passed, precisely because it elects both chambers of its legislature and its Head of State and all can block legislation. Even if one part controls all 3 branches of the Federal government, if it does not have a big majority in one chamber just 1 or 2 defections from its most centrist members can block passage of bills as planned, as Manchin and Sinema have proved
Whereas in the UK we have the omnishambles of last week.
Which is much better.
If our government remains a shambles they will quite rightly lose the next election and that will be that.
The people are in charge here, something the American founding fathers detested.
Good Lord. The futility of feeding mid term polls into Electoral Calculus has been given an air of respectability. There’s no hope now
Yes, add in a bit of tactical voting to the eye of bat and tail of newt and give it all a stir!
No doubt though that Johnson has lost his sheen. Can he regain it? Or is his act as dated as Jim Davidson?
He has one obvious chance for a big comeback. If Britain pushes through winter with no more lockdowns, no restrictions and ever-declining Covid (as seems possible, at least) while many of our European friends are forced into more lockdowns and suffer worsening Covid, then Boris will be seen as a great liberator. I expect many voters will forgive or forget the sleaze, and return to the True Faith
Lots could go wrong, however, of course
Boris will be fine. The opposition will never "get" him on sleaze. He's teflon like Blair.
I mean people forget now but the police actually interviewed Blair while he was PM over cash for honours.... so far Boris has avoided that particular ignominy... So far...
Pretty sarky at the end there. 'MPs discussed the need for more discussions and agreed to "take their time" with any reforms, but how long will the public give them?'
Paterson's arrogance, and Boris's lack of judgement over it, and the brazenness of the government in pretending people couldn't see what was happening and claiming they were doing something else, is infuriating. I'd never be surprised if next week polls rebound, but whoever first noted that this was such a needless affair is dead right. Why why why did they pick this fight?
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
The HOL needs either abolitioning or elected on a fair bases, and not a place for politicians to retire to and earn £300 a day
The allowance is paid on the basis of attendance and there is no reason why we should not have experienced elder statesmen in our upper house.
Make the Lords into an elected Senate like the US and it would also seek to be able to block Bills permanently, not merely delay as the Lords does now and we would end up with the same legislative deadlock the US has if a different party controls the House and Senate
The US seems to have got by quite well without a House of Lords. I don't see them rushing to implement it. Occasionally a check and balance may get in the way of the executive. As we saw in January and last week, that's not always a bad thing.
The US hardly ever gets any significant legislation passed, precisely because it elects both chambers of its legislature and its Head of State and all can block legislation. Even if one part controls all 3 branches of the Federal government, if it does not have a big majority in one chamber just 1 or 2 defections from its most centrist members can block passage of bills as planned, as Manchin and Sinema have proved
Whereas in the UK we have the omnishambles of last week.
Which was quickly rowed back on anyway when public opinion turned against it.
At least in the UK when we elect a government with a Commons majority it can get a lot done and its manifesto passed quickly, as the House of Lords can only delay bills not block them outright and the monarch generally just signs bills through.
That is rarely the case in the US, unless one party wins the Presidency and Congress by a landslide, as Obama and the Democrats did in 2008, enabling them to pass Obamacare before the GOP regained the House in 2010
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
That's an interesting take. Everybody else is dumping raw sewage into their rivers and sea, so why shouldn't we?
Sold his formr company for around £10m value for his share. Has a house in Windsor bought for £4m in 2008. Unencumbered in official records. Will have appreciated. HMRC are after £1.7m.
On the surface of it he could have sold up and downsized to a £2m house in the inflated market last year, and dodged 100s of k of Stamp Duty. Like Osborne probably did. And cleared the account.
Can I admit to not being a fan of the word sleaze? I think its too easy to get used too broadly, and you end up lumping the Paterson's of the world together with someone who gets their knuckles wrapped for over claiming on a box of pens or something. Or it is assumed to mean something where you do directly benefit, and thus those who have acted inappropriately perhaps without directly benefiting financially can claim they are not sleazy.
I prefer talking more about standards, about acting with integrity and propriety, but I accept it is not as catchy and might seem a bit anaemic a description for some behaviours.
Another day of evidence that we're just about hitting the herd immunity threshold. What's more is that it seems to be happening completely unnoticed by anyone except the amateur statistics people on the internet. The whole world seems to shutting it's eyes to UK COVID stats. If that German doomsday scenario is anywhere near accurate there will need to be a lot of questions asked of the German government about why they continued to pursue an eradication strategy while also realising it was never a realistic possibility.
Th factual numbers are wrong, because the people's feelings are The Truth.
Haven't you watched a press conference on COVID?
To be fair, I can see why HMG, scientists and the media are still pushing the "Covid is surging" and "lockdowns are possible" narratives. Because they want to frighten the last refuseniks into getting the jab, and they want to make sure the booster campaign continues its success
About the worst thing that could happen is everyone deciding Covid is OVER, and giving up on those annoying jabs
Yes I can understand the government ramping up the possibility of lockdowns to get people into the vaccines centres. What I don't understand is foreign countries not learning our lesson. The NPIs were always a shit idea once PIs existed to enough of an extent. Since May this year we've all been able to get vaccinated pretty easily in Europe.
The other weird part is where the fuck is the booster programme in Europe? Ours started badly but we're on course now to do 25m booster doses before Xmas, if the government opens up appointments to under 50s it will be more like 30m by then and 40m by the end of January. Once again I'm struggling to understand the complacency in Europe over vaccines. They haven't learned the lessons of last year at all it seems.
Their waning immunity is about 6 weeks behind ours, don't forget. So their booster campaign will follow the same path?
What is odd - and where I agree entirely - is how many sensible nations run by sensible people don't see what is happening elsewhere, and decide to get AHEAD of the curve. Germany could have looked at Israel and the UK and thought: OK, let's start boosters straight away, after 5 months have lapsed, so we don't get caught out
Time and again nations have failed to do this, to be proactive. Britain was the same, of course
This is absolutely spot on.
Countries seem strangely resistant to getting ahead of the curve. The EU has almost 200 million unused Covid vaccines doses, most of which are Pfizer, and a small amount Moderna.
There is an increasing amount of evidence now that a third dose pushes your immune response well above the levels you got after your second dose, and that the path of antibody declines is shallower.
Efficacy for 2 + 1 is probably in the 96 to 98 point range, even with Delta. And if that fades to 85 over a year, that's absolutely fine.
So, why is it that the EU (and the US for that matter) seems so lackadaisical about encouraging boosters? There's really no reason not to have everyone getting jabs on their six month anniversaries.
I expected Covid measure fatigue a lot sooner, but we almost seem to have gotten to a point where we had two shots, and lots have decided it is just beyond us to push people to get a third.
Rich nations have enough to give people boosters, they've had time for eveyone who could be persuaded to get a first and second shot to have done so (some benig better at this than others), so just go for it hard.
And all throughout this pandemic nations all over, and us the public in fairness, seem to have short memories. Like those people trying to point to EU second dose stats vs the UK as if they had no idea how maths works and that the UK rate woiuld increase massively after 3 months, or own own inability to see what would happen in January this year.
Comical Dave has already doubled down on "look at Eastern Europe", and switched to Death Rates, where it was all about high cases in the UK until very recently. The common element is that he is the EuCo's amateur PR man at the Politico, and the latest EuCo spat is to go for EE countries.
I know he's funny for most here, but he is also one of the widest-read agenda setters in EU media / politics. For a decent future EuCo needs a critical media, so you can find it without just looking for the two feet sticking out of UVDL's rear aspect. Quite a serious long term issue IMO.
Sold his formr company for around £10m value for his share. Has a house in Windsor bought for £4m in 2008. Unencumbered in official records. Will have appreciated. HMRC are after £1.7m.
On the surface of it he could have sold up and downsized to a £2m house in the inflated market last year, and dodged 100s of k of Stamp Duty. Like Osborne probably did. And cleared the account.
Hmmm.
Windsor and Maidenhead was 54% Remain.
Could offer an opportunity for the LDs if there is a by election, they were second in Windsor in 2019
1. A severe recession/inflation spike/interest rate hikes/cost of living etc
2. The "green crap" (as Cameron put it) Or rather the cost of the "green crap" which really ties in to one. However, I assume they'll be sensible enough to push most of the costs beyond 2023 lol!
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
Stories like this don't stick unless they have salience with the general public's experience, and the fact is there has been significant worsening of water quality in the seas around the country for several years (I've seen less on rivers other than the Thames, which of course the tideway tunnel will fix). There is ongoing controversy around raw sewage pollution in oyster and mussel fisheries in the SE, and we all know the stories from surfers around the country.
The reason it is a political issue now is that the Tories as usual took a completely tone deaf approach to voting and whipping on an issue that is motherhood and apple pie to the general public. Just like their repeated run-ins with Marcus Rashford on kids' meals. They seem strangely incapable of basic retail politics.
Promising to fix this should be a perfect opportunity for Labour. It is the essence of feel good politics to promise cleaner water. Nobody can argue against it, not on cost grounds ("what price clean water"), not on statistics ("you can quote these figures all you like but explain to me why Mrs Smith found a poo floating in her local lake last Friday"). It's where the opposition should be striding up to the crease and scoring free runs.
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
That's an interesting take. Everybody else is dumping raw sewage into their rivers and sea, so why shouldn't we?
Not my take.
My take is tackle it carefully, properly and rationally, rather than populism and scaremongering. Which is what we had on that issue.
That is UK Green Party style, rather than German Green Party style.
Which is why the UK Green Parties are essentially self-marginalised and irrelevant (except a bit of influence propping up the ScotGov), and the German Greens are a major player in Government.
1. A severe recession/inflation spike/interest rate hikes/cost of living etc
2. The "green crap" as Cameron put it. Or rather the cost of the "green crap" which really ties in to one. However, I assume they'll be sensible enough to push most of the costs beyond 2023 lol!
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
The HOL needs either abolitioning or elected on a fair bases, and not a place for politicians to retire to and earn £300 a day
The allowance is paid on the basis of attendance and there is no reason why we should not have experienced elder statesmen in our upper house.
Make the Lords into an elected Senate like the US and it would also seek to be able to block Bills permanently, not merely delay as the Lords does now and we would end up with the same legislative deadlock the US has if a different party controls the House and Senate
The US seems to have got by quite well without a House of Lords. I don't see them rushing to implement it. Occasionally a check and balance may get in the way of the executive. As we saw in January and last week, that's not always a bad thing.
The US hardly ever gets any significant legislation passed, precisely because it elects both chambers of its legislature and its Head of State and all can block legislation. Even if one part controls all 3 branches of the Federal government, if it does not have a big majority in one chamber just 1 or 2 defections from its most centrist members can block passage of bills as planned, as Manchin and Sinema have proved
Whereas in the UK we have the omnishambles of last week.
Which is much better.
If our government remains a shambles they will quite rightly lose the next election and that will be that.
The people are in charge here, something the American founding fathers detested.
Except that our political system is purpose-designed to give only two sides a look-in, such that we voters regularly get the choice between being shot or hung.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
The HOL needs either abolitioning or elected on a fair bases, and not a place for politicians to retire to and earn £300 a day
The allowance is paid on the basis of attendance and there is no reason why we should not have experienced elder statesmen in our upper house.
Make the Lords into an elected Senate like the US and it would also seek to be able to block Bills permanently, not merely delay as the Lords does now and we would end up with the same legislative deadlock the US has if a different party controls the House and Senate
The US seems to have got by quite well without a House of Lords. I don't see them rushing to implement it. Occasionally a check and balance may get in the way of the executive. As we saw in January and last week, that's not always a bad thing.
The US hardly ever gets any significant legislation passed, precisely because it elects both chambers of its legislature and its Head of State and all can block legislation. Even if one part controls all 3 branches of the Federal government, if it does not have a big majority in one chamber just 1 or 2 defections from its most centrist members can block passage of bills as planned, as Manchin and Sinema have proved
Whereas in the UK we have the omnishambles of last week.
Which is much better.
If our government remains a shambles they will quite rightly lose the next election and that will be that.
The people are in charge here, something the American founding fathers detested.
Except that our political system is purpose-designed to give only two sides a look-in, such that we voters regularly get the choice between being shot or hung.
It's a damned sight better than what could happen in the USA in the next decade or so where only one side gets a look in. And it won't be the Democrats.
House of Lords reform suggestion: why not make the UK a world first and run the upper house as AI?
Saves money and time, no more cash for honours, one party can't pack it with cronies. Just one very intelligent, and ever-learning robot. Would obviously need reasonably robust cyber security measures in place.
Can I admit to not being a fan of the word sleaze? I think its too easy to get used too broadly, and you end up lumping the Paterson's of the world together with someone who gets their knuckles wrapped for over claiming on a box of pens or something. Or it is assumed to mean something where you do directly benefit, and thus those who have acted inappropriately perhaps without directly benefiting financially can claim they are not sleazy.
I prefer talking more about standards, about acting with integrity and propriety, but I accept it is not as catchy and might seem a bit anaemic a description for some behaviours.
Fraud is a useful word. Sleaze rather understates what Paterson was up to.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
Can I admit to not being a fan of the word sleaze? I think its too easy to get used too broadly, and you end up lumping the Paterson's of the world together with someone who gets their knuckles wrapped for over claiming on a box of pens or something. Or it is assumed to mean something where you do directly benefit, and thus those who have acted inappropriately perhaps without directly benefiting financially can claim they are not sleazy.
I prefer talking more about standards, about acting with integrity and propriety, but I accept it is not as catchy and might seem a bit anaemic a description for some behaviours.
The word that I'm bored of is crisis. A pandemic is a crisis, most of the other stuff that has been labelled a crisis in recent months is not much more than a mild annoyance.
Watching that clip, I do wonder whether Boris is losing his touch. It's all a bit baffling. Firstly, there's obviously no reason why he couldn't have postponed or cut short this visit and attended today's debate if he thinks that the standards issue is so important. Secondly, why is he refusing to apologise when Barclay apologised on behalf of the government in the House?
The government should be particularly concerned by Mark Harper's comments in the House - saying that the 'captain of the team' should have been there in person.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
The HOL needs either abolitioning or elected on a fair bases, and not a place for politicians to retire to and earn £300 a day
The allowance is paid on the basis of attendance and there is no reason why we should not have experienced elder statesmen in our upper house.
Make the Lords into an elected Senate like the US and it would also seek to be able to block Bills permanently, not merely delay as the Lords does now and we would end up with the same legislative deadlock the US has if a different party controls the House and Senate
That could work. The Australian Senate has 1911 House of Lords powers, IIRC
The US system appears designed to cope with the potential insanity of any of its three legs by making sure the others can always stop anything happening.
SCOTUS gave itself far too much power with Marbury v Madison. Essentially the way any justice interprets the constitution can override both the president and congress; and when you have six federalists in there like now.... Thankfully SCOTUK did not use a similar tactic when deciding Miller II, for all it's faults Parliament should always be at the top of the tree - which Miller II affirmed.
Yes, that seems important. Interestingly they have tip toed in that direction from time to time apparently - Joshua Rozenberg's excellent recent book* has some very interesting discussion and analysis on the working and judgements of the courts, and those who are more conservative or activist, and while he takes issue with the conclusions of someone like Sumption, he did agree in a few instances where the court had taken a stance seemingly concluding parliament could not have intended what it seemed the legislations said it intended.
*Enemies of the People - very well written, thoughtful, and compelling.
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
Stories like this don't stick unless they have salience with the general public's experience, and the fact is there has been significant worsening of water quality in the seas around the country for several years (I've seen less on rivers other than the Thames, which of course the tideway tunnel will fix). There is ongoing controversy around raw sewage pollution in oyster and mussel fisheries in the SE, and we all know the stories from surfers around the country.
The reason it is a political issue now is that the Tories as usual took a completely tone deaf approach to voting and whipping on an issue that is motherhood and apple pie to the general public. Just like their repeated run-ins with Marcus Rashford on kids' meals. They seem strangely incapable of basic retail politics.
Promising to fix this should be a perfect opportunity for Labour. It is the essence of feel good politics to promise cleaner water. Nobody can argue against it, not on cost grounds ("what price clean water"), not on statistics ("you can quote these figures all you like but explain to me why Mrs Smith found a poo floating in her local lake last Friday"). It's where the opposition should be striding up to the crease and scoring free runs.
On even the low end of costs estimated, it is not far off a doubling of all residential water bills for a generation.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
American progressives are now turning on successful immigrants for not supporting their causes.
You found an arsehole on Twitter and extrapolated. Slow hand clap.
To be fair, being able to extrapolate from an a******e on Twitter is an achievement of sorts, given that most of them have already reached the limit?
I mean tarring many people on the behaviour of few. The implication that progressives are racist is no better than implying conservatives are. Oh yeah, THIS one is. Those tweets are pure arseholery. You want to try to extrapolate from there? You could choose "Mid-westerners". Or "women". Or "white people". Or "gingers". Ah but no. It's "progressives", isn't it?
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
That's an interesting take. Everybody else is dumping raw sewage into their rivers and sea, so why shouldn't we?
Not my take.
My take is tackle it carefully, properly and rationally, rather than populism and scaremongering. Which is what we had on that issue.
That is UK Green Party style, rather than German Green Party style.
Which is why the UK Green Party are essentially self-marginalised and irrelevant.
*pedantry* No such thing as the UK Green Party. Will be interesting to see how the two Green parties develop on the issue, as one is sort of in government.
BTW interesting (from an EVEL point of view) to see David Mundell MP voting on the Engliush legislation despite being a MP for a Scottish constituency. His argument seems to be that some waterways/estuaries are shared, which seems logical enough.
Watching that clip, I do wonder whether Boris is losing his touch. It's all a bit baffling. Firstly, there's obviously no reason why he couldn't have postponed or cut short this visit and attended today's debate if he thinks that the standards issue is so important. Secondly, why is he refusing to apologise when Barclay apologised on behalf of the government in the House?
The government should be particularly concerned by Mark Harper's comments in the House - saying that the 'captain of the team' should have been there in person.
He's refusing to apologise because he never apologies because he's a fucking psycho.
American progressives are now turning on successful immigrants for not supporting their causes.
'non-white flavor'
She lists two tech m(b?)illionaires Theil & Khosla - one of german the other of indian heritage... Her tweets now seem to be protected.
The left welcomes immigrants, along as they stay poor and do not get rich and become conservative
That's not true.
They are happy for them to become rich(ish), so long as they continue to donate handsomely to the appropriate left wing organisations.
They want immigrants who are poor and dependent on welfare subsidies from leftwing governments, or rich but very socially liberal and culturally left.
What they do not want is immigrants who become rich and not dependent on state welfare, who are socially conservative and become patriots in the country of destination
American progressives are now turning on successful immigrants for not supporting their causes.
You found an arsehole on Twitter and extrapolated. Slow hand clap.
To be fair, being able to extrapolate from an a******e on Twitter is an achievement of sorts, given that most of them have already reached the limit?
I mean tarring many people on the behaviour of few. The implication that progressives are racist is no better than implying conservatives are. Oh yeah, THIS one is. Those tweets are pure arseholery. You want to try to extrapolate from there? You could choose "Mid-westerners". Or "women". Or "white people". Or "gingers". Ah but no. It's "progressives", isn't it?
Of course it is - progressives choose to be progressives, the other options you offer don’t have anything to do with the ideas people who share the characteristic might have.
Can I admit to not being a fan of the word sleaze? I think its too easy to get used too broadly, and you end up lumping the Paterson's of the world together with someone who gets their knuckles wrapped for over claiming on a box of pens or something. Or it is assumed to mean something where you do directly benefit, and thus those who have acted inappropriately perhaps without directly benefiting financially can claim they are not sleazy.
I prefer talking more about standards, about acting with integrity and propriety, but I accept it is not as catchy and might seem a bit anaemic a description for some behaviours.
Sigourney Weaver mentioned it in "Aliens" as long ago as 1986:
"These people are *dead*, Burke! Don't you have any idea what you have done here? Well, I'm gonna make sure they nail you right to the wall for this! You're not gonna sleaze your way out of this one! Right to the wall!"
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
So what, there is no high IQ or Oxbridge graduate requirement to become an MP or peer.
Both however have decades of experience of the political and legislative process
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
Stories like this don't stick unless they have salience with the general public's experience, and the fact is there has been significant worsening of water quality in the seas around the country for several years (I've seen less on rivers other than the Thames, which of course the tideway tunnel will fix). There is ongoing controversy around raw sewage pollution in oyster and mussel fisheries in the SE, and we all know the stories from surfers around the country.
The reason it is a political issue now is that the Tories as usual took a completely tone deaf approach to voting and whipping on an issue that is motherhood and apple pie to the general public. Just like their repeated run-ins with Marcus Rashford on kids' meals. They seem strangely incapable of basic retail politics.
Promising to fix this should be a perfect opportunity for Labour. It is the essence of feel good politics to promise cleaner water. Nobody can argue against it, not on cost grounds ("what price clean water"), not on statistics ("you can quote these figures all you like but explain to me why Mrs Smith found a poo floating in her local lake last Friday"). It's where the opposition should be striding up to the crease and scoring free runs.
On even the low end of costs estimated, it is a doubling of all residential water bills for a generation.
How will that play?
On the lower end of the conservatives' estimates which turned out to be complete nonsense.
The UK is ranked 30/35 for bathing water quality across Europe (EU + a few neighbours). Yet clean bathing and fishing water is of benefit to everyone who ever goes near the coast or rivers.
Labour don't even need to worry about the cost arguments anyway, for the reason I gave above. Arguing for polluted water cos it's cheaper is about as politically palatable as arguing to reduce NHS funding or take free meals off children.
EDIT: and I think they should stop worrying about fully costing their manifesto. The Tories don't. The Lib Dems do - scientifically and with a great deal of effort and pride. Guess which one's in power. They can knock up a spreadsheet and fund it with a few sweeps of the pen including "making the water companies pay" and freezing bills, as well as the evergreen tackling tax avoidance.
American progressives are now turning on successful immigrants for not supporting their causes.
You found an arsehole on Twitter and extrapolated. Slow hand clap.
To be fair, being able to extrapolate from an a******e on Twitter is an achievement of sorts, given that most of them have already reached the limit?
I mean tarring many people on the behaviour of few. The implication that progressives are racist is no better than implying conservatives are. Oh yeah, THIS one is. Those tweets are pure arseholery. You want to try to extrapolate from there? You could choose "Mid-westerners". Or "women". Or "white people". Or "gingers". Ah but no. It's "progressives", isn't it?
Thing is, we all know that people on all sides will find a tweet from an idiot and state or imply that it is representative or, more likely, reflective of some fundamental aspect even if not quite so extreme. Sometimes it actually will be. So even if most of the time it won't be it's not a tactic that will stop.
1. A severe recession/inflation spike/interest rate hikes/cost of living etc
2. The "green crap" as Cameron put it. Or rather the cost of the "green crap" which really ties in to one. However, I assume they'll be sensible enough to push most of the costs beyond 2023 lol!
The brown crap is more of a problem currently.
Southern water has finally, after three months’ effort, managed to stop the sewer running down my road every time we have heavy rain. Pumping it out to sea isn’t ideal but I’d choose it over pumping it through my garden and along the road into the gardens below.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
House of Lords reform suggestion: why not make the UK a world first and run the upper house as AI?
Saves money and time, no more cash for honours, one party can't pack it with cronies. Just one very intelligent, and ever-learning robot. Would obviously need reasonably robust cyber security measures in place.
Great Idea, but it needs a catchy name. Could I suggest Skynet?
Another day of evidence that we're just about hitting the herd immunity threshold. What's more is that it seems to be happening completely unnoticed by anyone except the amateur statistics people on the internet. The whole world seems to shutting it's eyes to UK COVID stats. If that German doomsday scenario is anywhere near accurate there will need to be a lot of questions asked of the German government about why they continued to pursue an eradication strategy while also realising it was never a realistic possibility.
Th factual numbers are wrong, because the people's feelings are The Truth.
Haven't you watched a press conference on COVID?
To be fair, I can see why HMG, scientists and the media are still pushing the "Covid is surging" and "lockdowns are possible" narratives. Because they want to frighten the last refuseniks into getting the jab, and they want to make sure the booster campaign continues its success
About the worst thing that could happen is everyone deciding Covid is OVER, and giving up on those annoying jabs
Yes I can understand the government ramping up the possibility of lockdowns to get people into the vaccines centres. What I don't understand is foreign countries not learning our lesson. The NPIs were always a shit idea once PIs existed to enough of an extent. Since May this year we've all been able to get vaccinated pretty easily in Europe.
The other weird part is where the fuck is the booster programme in Europe? Ours started badly but we're on course now to do 25m booster doses before Xmas, if the government opens up appointments to under 50s it will be more like 30m by then and 40m by the end of January. Once again I'm struggling to understand the complacency in Europe over vaccines. They haven't learned the lessons of last year at all it seems.
Their waning immunity is about 6 weeks behind ours, don't forget. So their booster campaign will follow the same path?
What is odd - and where I agree entirely - is how many sensible nations run by sensible people don't see what is happening elsewhere, and decide to get AHEAD of the curve. Germany could have looked at Israel and the UK and thought: OK, let's start boosters straight away, after 5 months have lapsed, so we don't get caught out
Time and again nations have failed to do this, to be proactive. Britain was the same, of course
This is absolutely spot on.
Countries seem strangely resistant to getting ahead of the curve. The EU has almost 200 million unused Covid vaccines doses, most of which are Pfizer, and a small amount Moderna.
There is an increasing amount of evidence now that a third dose pushes your immune response well above the levels you got after your second dose, and that the path of antibody declines is shallower.
Efficacy for 2 + 1 is probably in the 96 to 98 point range, even with Delta. And if that fades to 85 over a year, that's absolutely fine.
So, why is it that the EU (and the US for that matter) seems so lackadaisical about encouraging boosters? There's really no reason not to have everyone getting jabs on their six month anniversaries.
I expected Covid measure fatigue a lot sooner, but we almost seem to have gotten to a point where we had two shots, and lots have decided it is just beyond us to push people to get a third.
Rich nations have enough to give people boosters, they've had time for eveyone who could be persuaded to get a first and second shot to have done so (some benig better at this than others), so just go for it hard.
And all throughout this pandemic nations all over, and us the public in fairness, seem to have short memories. Like those people trying to point to EU second dose stats vs the UK as if they had no idea how maths works and that the UK rate woiuld increase massively after 3 months, or own own inability to see what would happen in January this year.
Comical Dave has already doubled down on "look at Eastern Europe", and switched to Death Rates, where it was all about high cases in the UK until very recently. The common element is that he is the EuCo's amateur PR man at the Politico, and the latest EuCo spat is to go for EE countries.
I know he's funny for most here, but he is also one of the widest-read agenda setters in EU media / politics. For a decent future EuCo needs a critical media, so you can find it without just looking for the two feet sticking out of UVDL's rear aspect. Quite a serious long term issue IMO.
Eastern Europe is currently seeing death rates that in some cases exceed the UK's peaks from eaely in the pandemic. And it's because they have very low levels of vaccination.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
Not 'any', 'some' or maybe 'a few'. Or perhaps just [deleted].
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
American progressives are now turning on successful immigrants for not supporting their causes.
You found an arsehole on Twitter and extrapolated. Slow hand clap.
To be fair, being able to extrapolate from an a******e on Twitter is an achievement of sorts, given that most of them have already reached the limit?
I mean tarring many people on the behaviour of few. The implication that progressives are racist is no better than implying conservatives are. Oh yeah, THIS one is. Those tweets are pure arseholery. You want to try to extrapolate from there? You could choose "Mid-westerners". Or "women". Or "white people". Or "gingers". Ah but no. It's "progressives", isn't it?
Thing is, we all know that people on all sides will find a tweet from an idiot and state or imply that it is representative or, more likely, reflective of some fundamental aspect even if not quite so extreme. Sometimes it actually will be. So even if most of the time it won't be it's not a tactic that will stop.
Which leaves us two choices when we see it happen: acquiesce or protest.
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
That's an interesting take. Everybody else is dumping raw sewage into their rivers and sea, so why shouldn't we?
Not my take.
My take is tackle it carefully, properly and rationally, rather than populism and scaremongering. Which is what we had on that issue.
That is UK Green Party style, rather than German Green Party style.
Which is why the UK Green Parties are essentially self-marginalised and irrelevant (except a bit of influence propping up the ScotGov), and the German Greens are a major player in Government.
I would say that is mostly a function of the FPTP/PR effect.
House of Lords reform suggestion: why not make the UK a world first and run the upper house as AI?
Saves money and time, no more cash for honours, one party can't pack it with cronies. Just one very intelligent, and ever-learning robot. Would obviously need reasonably robust cyber security measures in place.
Great Idea, but it needs a catchy name. Could I suggest Skynet?
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
So what, there is no high IQ or Oxbridge graduate requirement to become an MP or peer.
Both however have decades of experience of the political and legislative process
It is important that all demographics are represented in the Lords, including morons, waitress, electoral failures and scoundrels. Certainly that is Johnsons approach, so why not IDS and Jezza too?
1. A severe recession/inflation spike/interest rate hikes/cost of living etc
2. The "green crap" as Cameron put it. Or rather the cost of the "green crap" which really ties in to one. However, I assume they'll be sensible enough to push most of the costs beyond 2023 lol!
The brown crap is more of a problem currently.
Southern water has finally, after three months’ effort, managed to stop the sewer running down my road every time we have heavy rain. Pumping it out to sea isn’t ideal but I’d choose it over pumping it through my garden and along the road into the gardens below.
But some way below directly into your house I assume?
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
That's an interesting take. Everybody else is dumping raw sewage into their rivers and sea, so why shouldn't we?
Not my take.
My take is tackle it carefully, properly and rationally, rather than populism and scaremongering. Which is what we had on that issue.
That is UK Green Party style, rather than German Green Party style.
Which is why the UK Green Party are essentially self-marginalised and irrelevant.
*pedantry* No such thing as the UK Green Party. Will be interesting to see how the two Green parties develop on the issue, as one is sort of in government.
BTW interesting (from an EVEL point of view) to see David Mundell MP voting on the Engliush legislation despite being a MP for a Scottish constituency. His argument seems to be that some waterways/estuaries are shared, which seems logical enough.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
While we worry about might happen in an election that's two and a half years away, in Bulgaria, they are voting for the third time this year on Sunday.
There are both Presidential and Legislative elections aimed at breaking the deadlock through which the country has travelled for the past several months.
In the Presidential election, the incumbent Ruman Radev, who is supported by most of the main parties except GERB-SDS, is well ahead of the GERB-SDS supported candidate Anastas Gerdzhikov. The latest Exacta poll gives Radev a 48-27 lead so not quite enough to win on the first ballot though other polls have him just over 50%.
In the Legislative election, the latest poll as follows:
Changes from the July 2021 election:
GERB/SDS: 24.2% (+0.7) Bulgarian Socialist Party: 15.7% (+2.3) We Continue the Change: 13.7% (+13.7) There is Such a Nation: 11.3% (-12.8) Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 11.1% (+0.4) Democratic Bulgaria: 9.8% (-2.8) Revival: 3.3% (+0.3) Stand Up Bulgaria!: 3.1% (-1.9) Bulgarian National Movement: 2.3% (-0.8)
It looks as though the first six groups will enter the National Assembly of 240 seats. As we know, there's a fair bit of antipathy toward both GERB leader and former Prime Minister Borisov, who doesn't get on at all with Radev and There is Such a Nation (ITN) leader Trifonov who frankly has acted a bit strange since the strong July result basically eschewing all offers of a coalition.
The question is whether the other four groups can somehow work together to provide a reasonably stable government. To be fair, both the Socialists and We Continue the Change (PP) have backed Radev.
Love the party names.
Imagine the UK versions.
Labour Party for Equity Amongst The People
Freedom Party for Liberal People Who Value Rights and Freedoms
Stand Up for Badgers and Foxes and Other Smaller Animals
Movement for Brave Scotland and Trainspotting
Sir Bob of Crow probably came closest with his No 2 EU - Yes to Democracy party. But he could have gone longer, I reckon.
Corbyn and IDS intelligent? "More intelligent than any of us on here" Wtf?
Has Leon been on the sauce again?
I never said that. Indeed I never said anything about their IQs
I merely said that in our present House of Lords, as it stands, they should be welcome and valued, as they are experienced senior politicians and, just as importantly, they represent major strands of British politics (even if they are also abhorred by multiple opponents). As long as they haven't broken major laws, let them be Lords (of course Corbyn would probably decline, as someone else said, but that's a different issue)
If you want to totally reform the Lords then do that, instead. I would be reluctant to challenge the Commons with another directly elected chamber, and end up with American-style stalemates
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Corbyn and IDS intelligent? "More intelligent than any of us on here" Wtf?
Has Leon been on the sauce again?
I never said that. Indeed I never said anything about their IQs
I merely said that in our present House of Lords, as it stands, they should be welcome and valued, as they are experienced senior politicians and, just as importantly, they represent major strands of British politics (even if they are also abhorred by multiple opponents). As long as they haven't broken major laws, let them be Lords (of course Corbyn would probably decline, as someone else said, but that's a different issue)
If you want to totally reform the Lords then do that, instead. I would be reluctant to challenge the Commons with another directly elected chamber, and end up with American-style stalemates
House of Lords = House of UNELECTED HAS-BEENS (or NEVER-BEENS in many cases!)!
Corbyn and IDS intelligent? "More intelligent than any of us on here" Wtf?
Has Leon been on the sauce again?
I never said that. Indeed I never said anything about their IQs
I merely said that in our present House of Lords, as it stands, they should be welcome and valued, as they are experienced senior politicians and, just as importantly, they represent major strands of British politics (even if they are also abhorred by multiple opponents). As long as they haven't broken major laws, let them be Lords (of course Corbyn would probably decline, as someone else said, but that's a different issue)
If you want to totally reform the Lords then do that, instead. I would be reluctant to challenge the Commons with another directly elected chamber, and end up with American-style stalemates
House of Lords = House of UNELECTED HAS-BEENS (or NEVER-BEENS in many cases!)!
Corbyn and IDS intelligent? "More intelligent than any of us on here" Wtf?
Has Leon been on the sauce again?
I never said that. Indeed I never said anything about their IQs
I merely said that in our present House of Lords, as it stands, they should be welcome and valued, as they are experienced senior politicians and, just as importantly, they represent major strands of British politics (even if they are also abhorred by multiple opponents). As long as they haven't broken major laws, let them be Lords (of course Corbyn would probably decline, as someone else said, but that's a different issue)
If you want to totally reform the Lords then do that, instead. I would be reluctant to challenge the Commons with another directly elected chamber, and end up with American-style stalemates
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I agree with most of that post but I am surprised you think both are more intelligent than any of us on here. I haven't seen anything particularly special about either and this forum clearly has many of high intelligence. In fact on the evidence available I suspect you are more intelligent than both.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
Another day of evidence that we're just about hitting the herd immunity threshold. What's more is that it seems to be happening completely unnoticed by anyone except the amateur statistics people on the internet. The whole world seems to shutting it's eyes to UK COVID stats. If that German doomsday scenario is anywhere near accurate there will need to be a lot of questions asked of the German government about why they continued to pursue an eradication strategy while also realising it was never a realistic possibility.
Th factual numbers are wrong, because the people's feelings are The Truth.
Haven't you watched a press conference on COVID?
To be fair, I can see why HMG, scientists and the media are still pushing the "Covid is surging" and "lockdowns are possible" narratives. Because they want to frighten the last refuseniks into getting the jab, and they want to make sure the booster campaign continues its success
About the worst thing that could happen is everyone deciding Covid is OVER, and giving up on those annoying jabs
Yes I can understand the government ramping up the possibility of lockdowns to get people into the vaccines centres. What I don't understand is foreign countries not learning our lesson. The NPIs were always a shit idea once PIs existed to enough of an extent. Since May this year we've all been able to get vaccinated pretty easily in Europe.
The other weird part is where the fuck is the booster programme in Europe? Ours started badly but we're on course now to do 25m booster doses before Xmas, if the government opens up appointments to under 50s it will be more like 30m by then and 40m by the end of January. Once again I'm struggling to understand the complacency in Europe over vaccines. They haven't learned the lessons of last year at all it seems.
Their waning immunity is about 6 weeks behind ours, don't forget. So their booster campaign will follow the same path?
What is odd - and where I agree entirely - is how many sensible nations run by sensible people don't see what is happening elsewhere, and decide to get AHEAD of the curve. Germany could have looked at Israel and the UK and thought: OK, let's start boosters straight away, after 5 months have lapsed, so we don't get caught out
Time and again nations have failed to do this, to be proactive. Britain was the same, of course
This is absolutely spot on.
Countries seem strangely resistant to getting ahead of the curve. The EU has almost 200 million unused Covid vaccines doses, most of which are Pfizer, and a small amount Moderna.
There is an increasing amount of evidence now that a third dose pushes your immune response well above the levels you got after your second dose, and that the path of antibody declines is shallower.
Efficacy for 2 + 1 is probably in the 96 to 98 point range, even with Delta. And if that fades to 85 over a year, that's absolutely fine.
So, why is it that the EU (and the US for that matter) seems so lackadaisical about encouraging boosters? There's really no reason not to have everyone getting jabs on their six month anniversaries.
I expected Covid measure fatigue a lot sooner, but we almost seem to have gotten to a point where we had two shots, and lots have decided it is just beyond us to push people to get a third.
Rich nations have enough to give people boosters, they've had time for eveyone who could be persuaded to get a first and second shot to have done so (some benig better at this than others), so just go for it hard.
And all throughout this pandemic nations all over, and us the public in fairness, seem to have short memories. Like those people trying to point to EU second dose stats vs the UK as if they had no idea how maths works and that the UK rate woiuld increase massively after 3 months, or own own inability to see what would happen in January this year.
Comical Dave has already doubled down on "look at Eastern Europe", and switched to Death Rates, where it was all about high cases in the UK until very recently. The common element is that he is the EuCo's amateur PR man at the Politico, and the latest EuCo spat is to go for EE countries.
I know he's funny for most here, but he is also one of the widest-read agenda setters in EU media / politics. For a decent future EuCo needs a critical media, so you can find it without just looking for the two feet sticking out of UVDL's rear aspect. Quite a serious long term issue IMO.
Eastern Europe is currently seeing death rates that in some cases exceed the UK's peaks from eaely in the pandemic. And it's because they have very low levels of vaccination.
Hitting the UK equivalent of a thousand+ deaths a day during the pandemic is a tragedy. Doing so, like Florida did, after vaccines have been widely available, is close to criminal.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
So what, there is no high IQ or Oxbridge graduate requirement to become an MP or peer.
Both however have decades of experience of the political and legislative process
It is important that all demographics are represented in the Lords, including morons, waitress, electoral failures and scoundrels. Certainly that is Johnsons approach, so why not IDS and Jezza too?
You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar When I met you I picked you out, I shook you up And ennobled you.
Corbyn and IDS intelligent? "More intelligent than any of us on here" Wtf?
Has Leon been on the sauce again?
I never said that. Indeed I never said anything about their IQs
I merely said that in our present House of Lords, as it stands, they should be welcome and valued, as they are experienced senior politicians and, just as importantly, they represent major strands of British politics (even if they are also abhorred by multiple opponents). As long as they haven't broken major laws, let them be Lords (of course Corbyn would probably decline, as someone else said, but that's a different issue)
If you want to totally reform the Lords then do that, instead. I would be reluctant to challenge the Commons with another directly elected chamber, and end up with American-style stalemates
Corbyn and IDS intelligent? "More intelligent than any of us on here" Wtf?
Has Leon been on the sauce again?
I never said that. Indeed I never said anything about their IQs
I merely said that in our present House of Lords, as it stands, they should be welcome and valued, as they are experienced senior politicians and, just as importantly, they represent major strands of British politics (even if they are also abhorred by multiple opponents). As long as they haven't broken major laws, let them be Lords (of course Corbyn would probably decline, as someone else said, but that's a different issue)
If you want to totally reform the Lords then do that, instead. I would be reluctant to challenge the Commons with another directly elected chamber, and end up with American-style stalemates
I think that's fair enough. I mean, I yield to no-one in my rejection of all Corbyn stands for. But he represents a significant constituency of opinion, and moreover has, what, 40 years experience in politics. He knows how it all works.
Off thread, I've just had Nigel Farage advertising a financial company as the advert before my youtube video plays.
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
That's an interesting take. Everybody else is dumping raw sewage into their rivers and sea, so why shouldn't we?
Not my take.
My take is tackle it carefully, properly and rationally, rather than populism and scaremongering. Which is what we had on that issue.
That is UK Green Party style, rather than German Green Party style.
Which is why the UK Green Parties are essentially self-marginalised and irrelevant (except a bit of influence propping up the ScotGov), and the German Greens are a major player in Government.
I would say that is mostly a function of the FPTP/PR effect.
I don't buy that. Plenty of other very expensive green arguments have been won in this country in the mainstream whilst we have had a FPTP system in place over the last 2-3 decades.
UK is leading edge for large European countries on green initiatives / delivering results.
1. A severe recession/inflation spike/interest rate hikes/cost of living etc
2. The "green crap" as Cameron put it. Or rather the cost of the "green crap" which really ties in to one. However, I assume they'll be sensible enough to push most of the costs beyond 2023 lol!
The brown crap is more of a problem currently.
Southern water has finally, after three months’ effort, managed to stop the sewer running down my road every time we have heavy rain. Pumping it out to sea isn’t ideal but I’d choose it over pumping it through my garden and along the road into the gardens below.
But some way below directly into your house I assume?
My house is 200 metres from the sea in a straight line, and now that Southern water has resumed directing the sewage toward the sea in a straight line, rather than through my garden, I am relatively happy.
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
That's an interesting take. Everybody else is dumping raw sewage into their rivers and sea, so why shouldn't we?
Not my take.
My take is tackle it carefully, properly and rationally, rather than populism and scaremongering. Which is what we had on that issue.
That is UK Green Party style, rather than German Green Party style.
Which is why the UK Green Parties are essentially self-marginalised and irrelevant (except a bit of influence propping up the ScotGov), and the German Greens are a major player in Government.
I would say that is mostly a function of the FPTP/PR effect.
I don't buy that. Plenty of other very expensive green arguments have been won in this country in the mainstream whilst we have had a FPTP system in place over the last 2-3 decades.
UK is leading edge for large European countries on green initiatives.
Yes, but the electoral fortunes of the parties themselves? Small parties can advance an agenda without achieving power, but if that's your definition of not being marginalised then your original point ("self-marginalised and irrelevant") disappears.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Yet you haven’t met many women who would have you again, which is the pertinent point.
I will settle for being less intelligent than you when the wine bottle is empty, knowing that the reverse will be true tomorrow morning.
But largely because I think IQ measures intelligence in breadth rather than depth.
I can only remember taking one IQ test in my life, or at least only one with the traditional scoring system. I remember being a bit disappointed at the outcome, so I resolved to show my intelligence by not taking another so I could imagine it as high or low as I wanted, depending how confident or faux-humble I wanted to feel at any given moment.
In some ways it must be very frustrating for the true genuises out there, as others fail to grasp what seems so straightforward.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Even Wilson was only a middle ranking PM and left a sluggish economy in urgent need of Thatcher's reforms.
Brown may have had drive, that did not mean he always had judgement
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
So what, there is no high IQ or Oxbridge graduate requirement to become an MP or peer.
Both however have decades of experience of the political and legislative process
It is important that all demographics are represented in the Lords, including morons, waitress, electoral failures and scoundrels. Certainly that is Johnsons approach, so why not IDS and Jezza too?
You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar When I met you I picked you out, I shook you up And ennobled you.
Wastrels! Bloody autocorrect, aided by a large glass of red.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
The HOL needs either abolitioning or elected on a fair bases, and not a place for politicians to retire to and earn £300 a day
Another Corbyn policy looking better and better. They're like fine wines.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Whereas now we have a wannabe Wilson without the brains.
I think we should have IQ tests for the House of Lords. You are allowed in if your IQ is different from everyone else's in the House. The bonus is we'd end up with something short of 200 members.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Surely true intelligence is a combination of many many things. Speed of thought processing is absolutely fundamental ("G", as it is known), that is *pure* intelligence, if such a thing exists.
But political intelligence also requires many more things: strategic vision, tactical nous, the ability to sense public feelings, emotional acuity and insight - the talent to make allies, but also the ruthlessness to drop them when necessary. A scientific eye also helps. Likewise a lawyerly gaze. You can weigh evidence
Of all the post war prime ministers I would say Thatcher had the most of these (but not all), followed by Blair
Unsurprisingly, she is now our most revered ex prime minister, and Blair is still admired by many despite the horror of Iraq
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
Adopting von Moltke's dictum, as an intelligent generalist, without having the ability to become an expert in a specifice field, you'd be an ideal commander, because you could see the big picture, but you owuld also know how to delegate. Whereas the more intelligent experts would be the staff officers, who could work up your ideas into detailed plans.
Comments
Thankfully SCOTUK did not use a similar tactic when deciding Miller II, for all it's faults Parliament should always be at the top of the tree - which Miller II affirmed.
If our government remains a shambles they will quite rightly lose the next election and that will be that.
The people are in charge here, something the American founding fathers detested.
I mean people forget now but the police actually interviewed Blair while he was PM over cash for honours.... so far Boris has avoided that particular ignominy... So far...
Paterson's arrogance, and Boris's lack of judgement over it, and the brazenness of the government in pretending people couldn't see what was happening and claiming they were doing something else, is infuriating. I'd never be surprised if next week polls rebound, but whoever first noted that this was such a needless affair is dead right. Why why why did they pick this fight?
At least in the UK when we elect a government with a Commons majority it can get a lot done and its manifesto passed quickly, as the House of Lords can only delay bills not block them outright and the monarch generally just signs bills through.
That is rarely the case in the US, unless one party wins the Presidency and Congress by a landslide, as Obama and the Democrats did in 2008, enabling them to pass Obamacare before the GOP regained the House in 2010
Sold his formr company for around £10m value for his share. Has a house in Windsor bought for £4m in 2008. Unencumbered in official records. Will have appreciated. HMRC are after £1.7m.
On the surface of it he could have sold up and downsized to a £2m house in the inflated market last year, and dodged 100s of k of Stamp Duty. Like Osborne probably did. And cleared the account.
Hmmm.
I prefer talking more about standards, about acting with integrity and propriety, but I accept it is not as catchy and might seem a bit anaemic a description for some behaviours.
I know he's funny for most here, but he is also one of the widest-read agenda setters in EU media / politics. For a decent future EuCo needs a critical media, so you can find it without just looking for the two feet sticking out of UVDL's rear aspect. Quite a serious long term issue IMO.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1457685368447320065
Could offer an opportunity for the LDs if there is a by election, they were second in Windsor in 2019
1. A severe recession/inflation spike/interest rate hikes/cost of living etc
2. The "green crap" (as Cameron put it) Or rather the cost of the "green crap" which really ties in to one. However, I assume they'll be sensible enough to push most of the costs beyond 2023 lol!
The reason it is a political issue now is that the Tories as usual took a completely tone deaf approach to voting and whipping on an issue that is motherhood and apple pie to the general public. Just like their repeated run-ins with Marcus Rashford on kids' meals. They seem strangely incapable of basic retail politics.
Promising to fix this should be a perfect opportunity for Labour. It is the essence of feel good politics to promise cleaner water. Nobody can argue against it, not on cost grounds ("what price clean water"), not on statistics ("you can quote these figures all you like but explain to me why Mrs Smith found a poo floating in her local lake last Friday"). It's where the opposition should be striding up to the crease and scoring free runs.
My take is tackle it carefully, properly and rationally, rather than populism and scaremongering. Which is what we had on that issue.
That is UK Green Party style, rather than German Green Party style.
Which is why the UK Green Parties are essentially self-marginalised and irrelevant (except a bit of influence propping up the ScotGov), and the German Greens are a major player in Government.
Saves money and time, no more cash for honours, one party can't pack it with cronies. Just one very intelligent, and ever-learning robot. Would obviously need reasonably robust cyber security measures in place.
They are happy for them to become rich(ish), so long as they continue to donate handsomely to the appropriate left wing organisations.
The government should be particularly concerned by Mark Harper's comments in the House - saying that the 'captain of the team' should have been there in person.
*Enemies of the People - very well written, thoughtful, and compelling.
How will that play in a "fully costed manifesto"?
Somewhat agree on the politics / presentation.
BTW interesting (from an EVEL point of view) to see David Mundell MP voting on the Engliush legislation despite being a MP for a Scottish constituency. His argument seems to be that some waterways/estuaries are shared, which seems logical enough.
https://www.peeblesshirenews.com/news/19681350.mundell-back-duty-water-firms-reduce-river-sewage/
What they do not want is immigrants who become rich and not dependent on state welfare, who are socially conservative and become patriots in the country of destination
"These people are *dead*, Burke! Don't you have any idea what you have done here? Well, I'm gonna make sure they nail you right to the wall for this! You're not gonna sleaze your way out of this one! Right to the wall!"
Both however have decades of experience of the political and legislative process
Serious question
The UK is ranked 30/35 for bathing water quality across Europe (EU + a few neighbours). Yet clean bathing and fishing water is of benefit to everyone who ever goes near the coast or rivers.
Labour don't even need to worry about the cost arguments anyway, for the reason I gave above. Arguing for polluted water cos it's cheaper is about as politically palatable as arguing to reduce NHS funding or take free meals off children.
EDIT: and I think they should stop worrying about fully costing their manifesto. The Tories don't. The Lib Dems do - scientifically and with a great deal of effort and pride. Guess which one's in power. They can knock up a spreadsheet and fund it with a few sweeps of the pen including "making the water companies pay" and freezing bills, as well as the evergreen tackling tax avoidance.
Eastern Europe is currently seeing death rates that in some cases exceed the UK's peaks from eaely in the pandemic. And it's because they have very low levels of vaccination.
Has Leon been on the sauce again?
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
We have Rainbow Graphs.
I merely said that in our present House of Lords, as it stands, they should be welcome and valued, as they are experienced senior politicians and, just as importantly, they represent major strands of British politics (even if they are also abhorred by multiple opponents). As long as they haven't broken major laws, let them be Lords (of course Corbyn would probably decline, as someone else said, but that's a different issue)
If you want to totally reform the Lords then do that, instead. I would be reluctant to challenge the Commons with another directly elected chamber, and end up with American-style stalemates
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you use it?
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
When I met you
I picked you out, I shook you up
And ennobled you.
I mean, I yield to no-one in my rejection of all Corbyn stands for. But he represents a significant constituency of opinion, and moreover has, what, 40 years experience in politics. He knows how it all works.
Off thread, I've just had Nigel Farage advertising a financial company as the advert before my youtube video plays.
UK is leading edge for large European countries on green initiatives / delivering results.
Small parties can advance an agenda without achieving power, but if that's your definition of not being marginalised then your original point ("self-marginalised and irrelevant") disappears.
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Am I doing this correctly?
I will settle for being less intelligent than you when the wine bottle is empty, knowing that the reverse will be true tomorrow morning.
But largely because I think IQ measures intelligence in breadth rather than depth.
In some ways it must be very frustrating for the true genuises out there, as others fail to grasp what seems so straightforward.
Brown may have had drive, that did not mean he always had judgement
When Clegg joined Facebook he handed over the rights to the Top SekRit Lib Dem Barchart technology.
So if you you say "Winning Here" in the context of bar charts, black helicopters full of lawyers will hunt you down.....
But political intelligence also requires many more things: strategic vision, tactical nous, the ability to sense public feelings, emotional acuity and insight - the talent to make allies, but also the ruthlessness to drop them when necessary. A scientific eye also helps. Likewise a lawyerly gaze. You can weigh evidence
Of all the post war prime ministers I would say Thatcher had the most of these (but not all), followed by Blair
Unsurprisingly, she is now our most revered ex prime minister, and Blair is still admired by many despite the horror of Iraq
It's only half full if I stop filling it halfway, and who the hell does that if the bottle isn't empty?
And when the bottle's empty, why would I care about the fucking glass?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
Adopting von Moltke's dictum, as an intelligent generalist, without having the ability to become an expert in a specifice field, you'd be an ideal commander, because you could see the big picture, but you owuld also know how to delegate. Whereas the more intelligent experts would be the staff officers, who could work up your ideas into detailed plans.