You have to hand it to Rishi: claiming to be a tax-cutting Chancellor just weeks after raising the tax burden to its highest level for 70 years takes some chutzpah. Bravo!
That's a trick that works, mysteriously. I went to a meeting with Jeremy Hunt where he solmenly assured us that there were more police under this government. "How do you mean "this" government, surely the Conservatives have reduced police numbers?" "Er...under Boris, I mean."
The (admittedly small and mostly Tory) audience nodded solemnly. People look at the last thing someone did, and forget about the earlier stuff.
My companion on this train is into Chess. Speaking in coordinates.
Help me God.
Today's game was a classic, longest move win in world championship history.
Companion is fucking buzzing off this.
Trying to explain it with empty innocent smoothie bottles.
There is only one mystery here. And it is a deep one... Where do you find innocent smoothie bottles on a Friday midnight Scottish train? Very Twilight Zone.
You have to hand it to Rishi: claiming to be a tax-cutting Chancellor just weeks after raising the tax burden to its highest level for 70 years takes some chutzpah. Bravo!
That's a trick that works, mysteriously. I went to a meeting with Jeremy Hunt where he solmenly assured us that there were more police under this government. "How do you mean "this" government, surely the Conservatives have reduced police numbers?" "Er...under Boris, I mean."
The (admittedly small and mostly Tory) audience nodded solemnly. People look at the last thing someone did, and forget about the earlier stuff.
You just have to be alive to it. It's funny how often my baseline changes from 16-17, 06-07, Jan-20, Dec-20 etc, depending on what story we want to tell.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
You have to hand it to Rishi: claiming to be a tax-cutting Chancellor just weeks after raising the tax burden to its highest level for 70 years takes some chutzpah. Bravo!
That's a trick that works, mysteriously. I went to a meeting with Jeremy Hunt where he solmenly assured us that there were more police under this government. "How do you mean "this" government, surely the Conservatives have reduced police numbers?" "Er...under Boris, I mean."
The (admittedly small and mostly Tory) audience nodded solemnly. People look at the last thing someone did, and forget about the earlier stuff.
Yep. It is easier to be a tax cutting Chancellor when you've banged them up to unprecedented levels. Bit like being the tallest dwarf. Or Everton's top goalscorer.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
My companion on this train is into Chess. Speaking in coordinates.
Help me God.
Today's game was a classic, longest move win in world championship history.
Companion is fucking buzzing off this.
Trying to explain it with empty innocent smoothie bottles.
It was fantastic. I feel sad for anyone who doesn't yet know enough chess to have found that gripping.
Sadly. It was the European Go Final today. Quite a beautiful end game. A brain the size of a solar system beat one of a planet, with a move none of us small band of watchers saw coming. Nor did we comprehend its significance in the slightest. We all thought he'd thrown it away. Got zero coverage.
My companion on this train is into Chess. Speaking in coordinates.
Help me God.
Today's game was a classic, longest move win in world championship history.
Companion is fucking buzzing off this.
Trying to explain it with empty innocent smoothie bottles.
It was fantastic. I feel sad for anyone who doesn't yet know enough chess to have found that gripping.
Sadly. It was the European Go Final today. Quite a beautiful end game. A brain the size of a solar system beat one of a planet, with a move none of us small band of watchers saw coming. Nor did we comprehend in the slightest. Got zero coverage.
My late great friend Duncan Macfarlane introduced me to Go many years ago. We used to play regularly and I never came close to beating him. A fascinating and fiendishly difficult game to master even though it seems so simple at first glance.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Our current PM is exactly that. A radical implementing real change.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
OK. I reckon Brexit is the last desperate knockings of a Thatcherite consensus which has run its course. Rather than anything radical it's a futile attempt to put the band back together. No one has answered the inherent contradictions of the GFC. A new generation will. And it won't be Socialism or Singapore on Thames.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
I don't buy this kind of stuff. Not at all. Humans are great at finding patterns (which is the kind cleverness that only a truly intelligent creature can perform) and then cramming any old random shit into the pattern to reinforce it when it breaks (which is the kind stupid that only a truly intelligent creature can perform). There's nothing inevitable or necessarily cyclical about the course of history. Patterns do emerge because of coincidence or because of temporary underlying social or economic convection currents, but such things are by nature chaotic.
In the above "40 year cycle" hypothesis, you need to account for what is causing that cycle. And before you reach for demographics, ask yourself whether demographics are really that stable. Even the concept of a "generation" is an extremely arbitrary one, and one that's subject to change as family sizes and starting ages evolve. Immigration and the changing nature of "shared experiences" would also have big effects, I reckon.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Our current PM is exactly that. A radical implementing real change.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
OK. I reckon Brexit is the last desperate knockings of a Thatcherite consensus which has run its course. Rather than anything radical it's a futile attempt to put the band back together. No one has answered the inherent contradictions of the GFC. A new generation will. And it won't be Socialism or Singapore on Thames.
The thing that a lot of people miss is that Brexit is a lot more radical than even its proponents assume. It's not a return a pre-EEC state. It's a completely untried mode of being for the UK. It's been done with very little run up or planning, and there are a lot of questions that won't be answered until the reality is bedded in.
If that's not radical, I don't know what it.
I would agree with you But it is this very unplanned nature which I feel won't settle anything for a couple of generations in the way I described upthread. We are already seeing it become less and less popular as the reality dawns. I just don't foresee it being the consensus till 2060. And if it is, it won't be the one any of its proponents anticipated.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Our current PM is exactly that. A radical implementing real change.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
OK. I reckon Brexit is the last desperate knockings of a Thatcherite consensus which has run its course. Rather than anything radical it's a futile attempt to put the band back together. No one has answered the inherent contradictions of the GFC. A new generation will. And it won't be Socialism or Singapore on Thames.
The thing that a lot of people miss is that Brexit is a lot more radical than even its proponents assume. It's not a return a pre-EEC state. It's a completely untried mode of being for the UK. It's been done with very little run up or planning, and there are a lot of questions that won't be answered until the reality is bedded in.
If that's not radical, I don't know what it.
The thing is people speak about Brexit as an end state. It's nothing of the sort.
It is both radical and boringly normal. It is simply the UK being an independent, sovereign country just as almost every other country on the planet is.
Brexit isn't a state any more than atheism is a religion. Brexit is just not being in the EU, what we do instead is up to us to decide.
Listening to it, I am not convinced his portrayal of Trump contains much acting. That quote is something I would imagine Trump would say.
I mean if that was me and it wasn't my fault, I would still feel incredible guilt that the gun I was holding killed somebody. And even if you can't use that word because of lawyers, there are ways of expressing sadness while not incriminating yourself as "guilty".
Listening to it, I am not convinced his portrayal of Trump contains much acting. That quote is something I would imagine Trump would say.
I mean if that was me and it wasn't my fault, I would still feel incredible guilt that the gun I was holding killed somebody. And even if you can't use that word because of lawyers, there are ways of expressing sadness while not incriminating yourself as "guilty".
Not sure. If you were handling a gun on a movie set and had been assured the gun wasn't loaded, it's not really your fault if it goes off when you're holding it.
Listening to it, I am not convinced his portrayal of Trump contains much acting. That quote is something I would imagine Trump would say.
I mean if that was me and it wasn't my fault, I would still feel incredible guilt that the gun I was holding killed somebody. And even if you can't use that word because of lawyers, there are ways of expressing sadness while not incriminating yourself as "guilty".
Not sure. If you were handling a gun on a movie set and had been assured the gun wasn't loaded, it's not really your fault if it goes off when you're holding it.
That's fine, but watch the video. Its total Trump style reaction, an aggressive, not me, definitely somebody, anybody. I don't know who, but...
You would expect a normal response "well its terrible situation, it is something that will stay with me for the rest of my life, I relive the moment every day...but I was provided with a firearm that I was told was not loaded and instructed to point it at the camera...there is an investigation ongoing to work out the full facts of the incident".
It's not mild if it's putting kids into hospital...
I just wonder if this 'genius move' of letting millions of kids in the UK be exposed to Delta is going to bite us on the ass down the line when it comes to Omicron, with reliance on so called immunity via exposure not holding up with this variant.
No. Even if there is significant reinfection, prior infection will tend to moderate severity. Besides, I think significant reinfection is overstating things. There has been very little reinfection with delta, so even if omicron is two or three times more able to do so, it’s still not huge. I’m not convinced by the belief that everyone in SA has had Covid argument. We’ve had this tried many times and the antibody evidence doesn’t stack up. It’s pretty certain now that we will see omicron gaining traction here. What effect that has on severe illness, hospitalisation and death is really anyone’s guess right now. My guess is not too much, but I am likely going to be wrong.
There are two versions of “covid is here forever”.
Version 1 is that it ceases being a major public health concern after this winter and floats around like influenza or pneumonia, competing for the same victims, while being annoying or barely noticeable for everyone else.
Version 2 is that we’re locked in a continual race between viral evolution and science, and that 2021 is more or less as good as things get until we get another major scientific breakthrough. There are no doubt many already falling into an almost existential depression at the possibility this might be true.
The Pfizer retroviral (Paxlovid) reduces hospitalisation from Covid by 90%. Once that is being produced in mega quantities, that will make a massive difference.
(Am I the only person who's a little... surprised... that Pfizer has managed to produce the first vaccine to market and the first really successful treatment.)
I don’t understand why you are surprised. Pfizer is a great company with a pedigree of success. Why wouldn’t they be first?
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
Not a hope. They are obviously pampering southern houseowners and their middle aged soon to retire children. Look at the increase to IHT threshold being mooted.
Point of information: Sweden, probably the most consistently left-of-centre country on the planet during the last 100 years, abolished inheritance tax in 2004. The parliamentary vote was unanimous and absolutely nobody is interested in reintroducing it.
Inheritance tax has got to be the daftest tax still on the books. It serves no one well. Just scrap it.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Our current PM is exactly that. A radical implementing real change.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
OK. I reckon Brexit is the last desperate knockings of a Thatcherite consensus which has run its course. Rather than anything radical it's a futile attempt to put the band back together. No one has answered the inherent contradictions of the GFC. A new generation will. And it won't be Socialism or Singapore on Thames.
The thing that a lot of people miss is that Brexit is a lot more radical than even its proponents assume. It's not a return a pre-EEC state. It's a completely untried mode of being for the UK. It's been done with very little run up or planning, and there are a lot of questions that won't be answered until the reality is bedded in.
If that's not radical, I don't know what it.
The thing is people speak about Brexit as an end state. It's nothing of the sort.
It is both radical and boringly normal. It is simply the UK being an independent, sovereign country just as almost every other country on the planet is.
Brexit isn't a state any more than atheism is a religion. Brexit is just not being in the EU, what we do instead is up to us to decide.
This idea that leaving the EU leaves us free to decide things...its an attractive notion but:
OECD rules tie the UK's hands on how it delivers foreign aid WTO rules drive how we conduct trade rules NATO dictates how we must defend other countries (esp EU ones) and how much we should spend UN Resolutions commit the UK to uphold/take action ECHR drive the UKs human rights policy.... The US controls our `independent' nuclear deterrence technology
The list goes on and on....
The idea that we have suddenly removed all shackles that stopped us from trading like Germany or having a social security system like Sweden (both of which are EU) is simply wrong...... the UK is almost as tied to various (this time more secretive) commitments as it was before... and so far to virtually no benefit.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Brexit.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
I don't buy this kind of stuff. Not at all. Humans are great at finding patterns (which is the kind cleverness that only a truly intelligent creature can perform) and then cramming any old random shit into the pattern to reinforce it when it breaks (which is the kind stupid that only a truly intelligent creature can perform). There's nothing inevitable or necessarily cyclical about the course of history. Patterns do emerge because of coincidence or because of temporary underlying social or economic convection currents, but such things are by nature chaotic.
In the above "40 year cycle" hypothesis, you need to account for what is causing that cycle. And before you reach for demographics, ask yourself whether demographics are really that stable. Even the concept of a "generation" is an extremely arbitrary one, and one that's subject to change as family sizes and starting ages evolve. Immigration and the changing nature of "shared experiences" would also have big effects, I reckon.
I’ve linked to it before but check out some of Mark Blythe’s videos on “global trumpism”. It explains the long term cyclical resetting of economics, labour policy and trade very well.
My point about national insurance is that people doing highly paid PAYE jobs (of whom there are many on here) are essentially being screwed over and discriminated against by the government. The marginal tax take of earnings beyond a certain point works out at something like 60p in the pound. At the same time, these people are broadly disliked as a group in society, branded as evil tories, and are not politically organised - many don't even vote for the Conservative party any more as is the case with several cutting up their membership cards on here. They are basically a persecuted minority without effective political representation. It is shocking that they are so ineffective, in this respect.
My suggestion is this should be seen for what it is - a tax that is designed to discourage such employment; and that people should find other ways of making money, for instance by starting their own businesses and paying themselves through dividends.
The governments actions over National Insurance simply go to prove the libertarian maxim that people have a moral duty to pay as little tax as possible. People should stop moaning and complaining and follow this advice.
My companion on this train is into Chess. Speaking in coordinates.
Help me God.
Today's game was a classic, longest move win in world championship history.
Companion is fucking buzzing off this.
Trying to explain it with empty innocent smoothie bottles.
It was fantastic. I feel sad for anyone who doesn't yet know enough chess to have found that gripping.
Sadly. It was the European Go Final today. Quite a beautiful end game. A brain the size of a solar system beat one of a planet, with a move none of us small band of watchers saw coming. Nor did we comprehend its significance in the slightest. We all thought he'd thrown it away. Got zero coverage.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Good morning all.
He didn't, by and large, but contrary to media coverage, one or two people who gave him advice did. The idea of radically decentralised and mutualised, rather than the caricature of soviet and top-down national public utiilities, is genuinely new, and genuinely pretty interesting. That's not orthodox old-school socialism, but something else, and this is partly why the labour right misunderstand him as only representing the old hard left.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Brexit.
There, fixed that for you.
If you add Brexit, delete Thatcher add Heath. Thatcher worked under and benefited from the parameters laid by Heath. But I’m not sure I buy this theory. Personally I buy shock, delayed reaction 5-10 years hence, once the consequences work through the system.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Good morning all.
He didn't, by and large, but contrary to media coverage, one or two people who gave him advice did. The idea of radically decentralised and mutualised, rather than the caricature of soviet and top-down national public utiilities, is genuinely new, and genuinely pretty interesting. That's not orthodox old-school socialism, but something else, and this is partly why the labour right misunderstand him as only representing the old hard left.
Just to add, to complete the picture, a portion of the old hard left did rejoin under his tenure, many of whom have already left again, but in general they were, and are, just as nonplussed by the mutualising and decentralising aspect as the labour right. This is the realm of some of the younger activists who joined, and the group within those who are much less exclusively focused on identity issues.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
Good morning all. Much celebration locally; it's our little towns Christmas celebrations. Visits by Santa, carol singing in the main square, stalls..... seem to have acquired a lot of dog-related activities this year. And the Cole's far flung relations have finally got all the legalities sorted and, assuming that there are no border closures, we should have all out grandchildren with us for The Day! So one way and another I'm feeling quite positive!
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
The same as those Americans who could see that Trump shamed their country but backed him “because he will defend our guns” or suchlike.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
Says a lot about your political antenna that you don't get what around 40 % of voters regularly vote for and elect many governments. That is weird on a politics site.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
Sylvie Bermann's article in the Guardian is interesting in that context.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
Again you don't get it. Conservatives by and large don't do the passionate stuff in politics. Thatcher was a bit of an exception and it didn't end well. Life is for living not for hero worshipping politicians.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
Says a lot about your political antenna that you don't get what around 40 % of voters regularly vote for and elect many governments. That is weird on a politics site.
Hmmm. If you read my post, I think I answer that. There is a big anti-politics constituency out there that he taps into. In any case, whilst I am sure you have all the answers, I think a political site is a good place to talk about things that puzzle you. I would never vote for Boris, because he is demonstrably completely untrustworthy. He’s the sort of man who will promise you anything.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
Says a lot about your political antenna that you don't get what around 40 % of voters regularly vote for and elect many governments. That is weird on a politics site.
I realise Boris Johnson is Leader of the Conservative party, but I don't the impression that many of my Conservative friends and relations are very happy with that situation, apart from the fact that he's good at winning elections. Which is, of course, why the Conservative party exists; to ensure that 'our friends' are elected, as opposed to people, like, whisper it, Jeremy Corbyn, with challenging ideas.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
Again you don't get it. Conservatives by and large don't do the passionate stuff in politics. Thatcher was a bit of an exception and it didn't end well. Life is for living not for hero worshipping politicians.
Hero worship, surely, is exactly what our current PM craves. He isn't really interested in the lives of 'ordinary people'. As others have said, he sees a crowd going in a certain direction, runs to the front and shouts 'follow me'.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
Says a lot about your political antenna that you don't get what around 40 % of voters regularly vote for and elect many governments. That is weird on a politics site.
I realise Boris Johnson is Leader of the Conservative party, but I don't the impression that many of my Conservative friends and relations are very happy with that situation, apart from the fact that he's good at winning elections. Which is, of course, why the Conservative party exists; to ensure that 'our friends' are elected, as opposed to people, like, whisper it, Jeremy Corbyn, with challenging ideas.
Oh of course - anecdotes will always confirm preconceptions way better than polling or the ballot box.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
Again you don't get it. Conservatives by and large don't do the passionate stuff in politics. Thatcher was a bit of an exception and it didn't end well. Life is for living not for hero worshipping politicians.
Hero worship, surely, is exactly what our current PM craves. He isn't really interested in the lives of 'ordinary people'. As others have said, he sees a crowd going in a certain direction, runs to the front and shouts 'follow me'.
So bitter... and so dumb. A lost cause. Never mind.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
I think we grossly overestimate the ability of politicians to foresee the future.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
Again you don't get it. Conservatives by and large don't do the passionate stuff in politics. Thatcher was a bit of an exception and it didn't end well. Life is for living not for hero worshipping politicians.
Hero worship, surely, is exactly what our current PM craves. He isn't really interested in the lives of 'ordinary people'. As others have said, he sees a crowd going in a certain direction, runs to the front and shouts 'follow me'.
So bitter... and so dumb. A lost cause. Never mind.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
Says a lot about your political antenna that you don't get what around 40 % of voters regularly vote for and elect many governments. That is weird on a politics site.
I realise Boris Johnson is Leader of the Conservative party, but I don't the impression that many of my Conservative friends and relations are very happy with that situation, apart from the fact that he's good at winning elections. Which is, of course, why the Conservative party exists; to ensure that 'our friends' are elected, as opposed to people, like, whisper it, Jeremy Corbyn, with challenging ideas.
Oh of course - anecdotes will always confirm preconceptions way better than polling or the ballot box.
In our system there are many who 'hold their noses' and vote whichever way. Red, Blue or whatever. Because that's the way FPTP works.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
I think we grossly overestimate the ability of politicians to foresee the future.
Yes you are right. It’s splashed all over the news today about how the government wants to give perks to Rivian to build a factory in Bristol. I mean really… a smart political would be running a mile from that company. Then again, the whole commodities world knew what sort of game Gupta was into and yet Cameron dived headfirst into that one.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
I think I've found the earliest "Keith Starmer". Pretty sure it's an accidental Keithing though..
"So Lord Falconer’s commission, funded by Sir Terry Pratchett, has concluded that there is a ‘strong case’ for assisted suicide, has it? Well, there’s a thing. Given their previous form and the composition of the committee, it would have been remarkable if they’d decided that, on balance, the law works perfectly well — which is what one of their witnesses, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keith Starmer, said."
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
Whilst Hitler comparisons should always be avoided, I think in this case OKC was making a specific point that the attempts of an establishment trying to control a populist political leader with his own movement are unlikely to succeed. No doubt there are other examples.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
you could argue he very nearly started a domestic (civil) war...... the first one in more than 40 years.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
I’m not sure @OldKingCole is bothered about “winning round Trump voters” considering he’s British.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
I don't think posts on PBUK are aimed at Trump voters tbf.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
The National Front under Marine Le Pen is nothing like the National Front under her father. Hence why half a dozen political parties have sprung up to her right.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Brexit.
There, fixed that for you.
If you add Brexit, delete Thatcher add Heath. Thatcher worked under and benefited from the parameters laid by Heath. But I’m not sure I buy this theory. Personally I buy shock, delayed reaction 5-10 years hence, once the consequences work through the system.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
Start vs join is semantics here. Without debating the rights and wrongs of each campaign, I think it’s polite to Obama to say Libya was nothing to do with him, when he put boots on the ground, not just eyes in the sky, with the explicit goal of regime change. Which he was successful at, with a US missile attack on Gaddafi’s convoy being the direct enabler for his violent death.
Clinton mobilised a coalition with the goal of removing the Belgrade government from part of its sovereign territory in Kosovo. I’d say that was a war. Mogadishu. Desert Fox. As for George W, I must have missed the bit about Iraq starting it by blowing up the world trade centre.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
Start vs join is semantics here. Without debating the rights and wrongs of each campaign, I think it’s polite to Obama to say Libya was nothing to do with him, when he put boots on the ground, not just eyes in the sky, with the explicit goal of regime change. Which he was successful at, with a US missile attack on Gaddafi’s convoy being the direct enabler for his violent death.
Clinton mobilised a coalition with the goal of removing the Belgrade government from part of its sovereign territory in Kosovo. I’d say that was a war. Mogadishu. Desert Fox. As for George W, I must have missed the bit about Iraq starting it by blowing up the world trade centre.
Right: so if you look at it from a very particular angle, you can probably/possibly show that Trump was less interventionist than his predecessors. Maybe.
And then when he was followed by someone who was genuinely less interventionist, in that he actually pulled out of Afghanistan and dramatically curtailed the drone strikes, then Trump called him our for being "weak".
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
Bartlet didn't start a war either.
That’s because of his special carpet in his office
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
Selection bias. Heve you considered that your friends are not normal? Most U.K. folk are VERY law abiding and rule obeyers. Hence the fury about others transgressing in lockdown.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
True but I said all positives not all infections - anecdotally, the few people I know of who have caught Covid have always had it conformed by PCR. Personally, I can't see the point. I'd assume from symptoms that I had it and act accordingly.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Everyone who votes for Zemmour will vote for Le Pen if she gets into the second round. The idea that a Le Pen victory would not empower overt racists across France is extraordinarily naive. Whether she is one or not - and I am not sure why you give her such benefit of the doubt given the company she has kept over the years - is largely immaterial if those actually doing the governing on the ground are.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
We have a poster on here who gladly praises Franco.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
Indeed. I know people with jobs or lifestyles that put them in frequent contact with germs that havent bothered doing an LTF the second or third time they’ve caught it. Some did. But some now just soak up the immune training. A London thing I think.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
The situation before vaccines was: ""horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the Covid victim. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of covid victims die."
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
She might very well win.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
We have a poster on here who gladly praises Franco.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
Selection bias. Heve you considered that your friends are not normal? Most U.K. folk are VERY law abiding and rule obeyers. Hence the fury about others transgressing in lockdown.
If my friends were normal, they wouldn't be my friends.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
I can't help thinking the efficacy of the vaccines against infection was exaggerated in the drive to get people vaccinated. A lot of people got the impression that they should expect to be immune from infection altogether. But even in the original trials the overall efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection (including asymptomatic infection) was only around 50%.
So anecdotes about individual double-jabbed people being infected with Omicron are meaningless. We need proper data, though we already have a study apparently showing more reinfection in South Africa than in previous waves. But it's the sheer growth rate compared with Delta (whatever exactly the reasons behind it) that is likely to cause problems for health services. The initial S-gene dropout data in the UK looks broadly consistent with the growth rate seen in South Africa, and fortunately that aspect will become clearer quite quickly.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
Bartlet didn't start a war either.
That’s because of his special carpet in his office
Yes he made sure the eagle was always facing the olive branch.
Comments
"How do you mean "this" government, surely the Conservatives have reduced police numbers?"
"Er...under Boris, I mean."
The (admittedly small and mostly Tory) audience nodded solemnly. People look at the last thing someone did, and forget about the earlier stuff.
Where do you find innocent smoothie bottles on a Friday midnight Scottish train?
Very Twilight Zone.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Bit like being the tallest dwarf. Or Everton's top goalscorer.
Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks.
Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's.
Liberal government 1905 onwards.
Attlee.
Thatcher.
Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them.
And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
Got zero coverage.
I reckon Brexit is the last desperate knockings of a Thatcherite consensus which has run its course.
Rather than anything radical it's a futile attempt to put the band back together.
No one has answered the inherent contradictions of the GFC.
A new generation will. And it won't be Socialism or Singapore on Thames.
We are already seeing it become less and less popular as the reality dawns. I just don't foresee it being the consensus till 2060. And if it is, it won't be the one any of its proponents anticipated.
It is both radical and boringly normal. It is simply the UK being an independent, sovereign country just as almost every other country on the planet is.
Brexit isn't a state any more than atheism is a religion. Brexit is just not being in the EU, what we do instead is up to us to decide.
Interviewer - "Do you feel guilt?"
Alec Baldwin - “No. Someone is responsible for what happened and I can’t say who that is, but I know it’s not me.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-responsible/story?id=81490389
Listening to it, I am not convinced his portrayal of Trump contains much acting. That quote is something I would imagine Trump would say.
I mean if that was me and it wasn't my fault, I would still feel incredible guilt that the gun I was holding killed somebody. And even if you can't use that word because of lawyers, there are ways of expressing sadness while not incriminating yourself as "guilty".
You would expect a normal response "well its terrible situation, it is something that will stay with me for the rest of my life, I relive the moment every day...but I was provided with a firearm that I was told was not loaded and instructed to point it at the camera...there is an investigation ongoing to work out the full facts of the incident".
Minnesota man with Omicron met about 35 friends at Anime NYC and about half of them have since tested positive for COVID - WaPo
Inheritance tax has got to be the daftest tax still on the books. It serves no one well. Just scrap it.
OECD rules tie the UK's hands on how it delivers foreign aid
WTO rules drive how we conduct trade rules
NATO dictates how we must defend other countries (esp EU ones) and how much we should spend
UN Resolutions commit the UK to uphold/take action
ECHR drive the UKs human rights policy....
The US controls our `independent' nuclear deterrence technology
The list goes on and on....
The idea that we have suddenly removed all shackles that stopped us from trading like Germany or having a social security system like Sweden (both of which are EU) is simply wrong...... the UK is almost as tied to various (this time more secretive) commitments as it was before... and so far to virtually no benefit.
Liberal government 1905 onwards.
Attlee.
Thatcher.
Brexit.
There, fixed that for you.
Mind you, I find Flemish Week gripping, so I’m clearly not ideologically opposed to nerddom.
My suggestion is this should be seen for what it is - a tax that is designed to discourage such employment; and that people should find other ways of making money, for instance by starting their own businesses and paying themselves through dividends.
The governments actions over National Insurance simply go to prove the libertarian maxim that people have a moral duty to pay as little tax as possible. People should stop moaning and complaining and follow this advice.
He didn't, by and large, but contrary to media coverage, one or two people who gave him advice did. The idea of radically decentralised and mutualised, rather than the caricature of soviet and top-down national public utiilities, is genuinely new, and genuinely pretty interesting. That's not orthodox old-school socialism, but something else, and this is partly why the labour right misunderstand him as only representing the old hard left.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Ww1 -> Ramsay McD
DepressionWw2 -> Attlee
Suez -> Wilson
Oil Crisis -> Thatcher
ERM crisis -> Blair
Credit Crunch -> Brexit
CV19 -> ??
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
And the Cole's far flung relations have finally got all the legalities sorted and, assuming that there are no border closures, we should have all out grandchildren with us for The Day!
So one way and another I'm feeling quite positive!
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
I got a nice Ossa lease.
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
"So Lord Falconer’s commission, funded by Sir Terry Pratchett, has concluded that there is a ‘strong case’ for assisted suicide, has it? Well, there’s a thing. Given their previous form and the composition of the committee, it would have been remarkable if they’d decided that, on balance, the law works perfectly well — which is what one of their witnesses, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keith Starmer, said."
Melanie McDonagh, 5th January 2012
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lord-falconer-has-the-wrong-ideas-about-assisted-suicide
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
There, fixed that for you.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
Can anybody recommend a sauce?
Clinton mobilised a coalition with the goal of removing the Belgrade government from part of its sovereign territory in Kosovo. I’d say that was a war. Mogadishu. Desert Fox. As for George W, I must have missed the bit about Iraq starting it by blowing up the world trade centre.
And then when he was followed by someone who was genuinely less interventionist, in that he actually pulled out of Afghanistan and dramatically curtailed the drone strikes, then Trump called him our for being "weak".
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
So anecdotes about individual double-jabbed people being infected with Omicron are meaningless. We need proper data, though we already have a study apparently showing more reinfection in South Africa than in previous waves. But it's the sheer growth rate compared with Delta (whatever exactly the reasons behind it) that is likely to cause problems for health services. The initial S-gene dropout data in the UK looks broadly consistent with the growth rate seen in South Africa, and fortunately that aspect will become clearer quite quickly.
Which *google* it does now anyway.