UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
The Young Conservatives too have often been extreme eg on South Africa in the 1980s.
However neither represent the Leader or Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet nor the majority of MPs and they are the ones who are most relevant
Yeah well said.
The youth movements of most parties are full of wild extremes. As it happens this one from Young Labour was pretty mild stuff.
The modern Young Conservatives have been castrated by CCHQ; there aren't any serious elected roles, CCHQ appoints and pays a YC Manager to "run" things, and they've been reduced basically to one youth conference a year (if they're lucky) and a few social media accounts. Most of the dodgy stuff comes from young small-c conservatives operating with no oversight in small online cliques, and whenever it hits the press CCHQ blacklists them.
Young Conservatives do get cheaper tickets for the big boy conferences though, which is nice I guess.
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
I suspect if we had a ledger of Tory politicians and non-Tory politicians working on behalf of the Big Bear, one entry would be comfortably more substantial than the other.
UKLabour has too often been on the wrong side of international issues. Young Labour calls on the leadership to stop backing NATO aggression, call wholeheartedly for peace, commit to constructive engagement with activists and deliver international policy around peace and cooperation
This isn't some random group of nutters, they are actually part of the Labour Party (all party members aged 14 to 26). God help us: a choice between Boris and a party with supporters of Vladimir Putin.
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
I suspect if we had a ledger of Tory politicians and non-Tory politicians working on behalf of the Big Bear, one entry would be comfortably more substantial than the other.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
This post is a little silly and coming from you quite surprising. It's exactly the same nonsense that some of the more excitable Scottish nationalists come out with when they claim Scotland is a colony. You're better than this.
Nope read what I wrote rather than what you want it to say. If the mere fact you left a bloc means you were always sovereign - which is the idiotic claim made by Topping - then all those former Eastern bloc countries were always sovereign and so is Scotland right now. A claim which is so obviously ludicrous that I am amazed you can even contemplate it.
Ok, let's leave my NATO analogy (it's not a great one, to be fair).
Instead consider enforcement.
Former USSR country, while part of USSR - most senior politician does something directly against USSR policy or rules, what's the punishment? Prosecution. Imprisonment. Worse, perhaps. UDI? The tanks roll in.
Scottish government does something against UK law, e.g. unauthorised referendum, UDI. Possible prosecution (treason?). Theoretically, the tanks roll in (depends how far up the government HYUFD has got!)
UK government, while in EU, does something against EU law (or, say, refuses to enact EU law into domestic law). Or has a referendum on 'independence' without asking EU for permission. Or declares UDI. Enforcement? EU could take UK to court. UK gets told to behave and/or fined? Enforcement? The absolute worst is getting kicked out or perhaps trade sanctions. The EU has no power to try the UK PM, does it? Civil court case, perhaps, but not criminal. Has a referendum on leaving without permission? We didn't need EU permission. UDI? EU points to A50, but in practice we can just tear up the treaties and exit immediately by repealing EU law.
Edit: I accept there is debate over sovereignty, particularly with QMV, but the UK always had the ability to take its toys home if it really didn't like it (as we indeed did). Scotland and the former USSR states do not/did not have that ability. The situations are different. Whether the UK was sovereign does however depend on where you draw that line, so I'm not really arguing on that, just that the USSR is not a good comparison to the EU.
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Thanks for mansplaining it.
What extreme minority views are you referring to on the GC side. If they are minority, then by nature they are not held by the majority of GC feminists.
Oh do fuck off with the 'mansplaining'. Do you have to be female to have a view on this? No. And do females all have the same view on it? No. They are split or agnostic, just like males are. Eg 2 of our regular female posters, Cyclefree and Beverley, hold opposing views.
What I'm talking about is the tendency (both sides) to frame the opposite side by its most extreme proponents. Eg what Carlotta posted - the 'pro' side making out the 'anti' side is full of bigots who want to obliterate trans people, sterilize them, all of that. Yes, there are such nasties and they make a lot of noise but that isn't the essence of the case against reforming the GRA.
Likewise - and my balancing point in response - you get the 'anti' side making out that if it becomes easier to change gender (base it on self-Id) then as night follows day it's the end of sex as a legal concept and thus the end of all women's rights and protections. Again, yes there are crazies who argue sex is nothing, gender is everything, and yes they make a lot of noise, but this is not the essence of the case for reforming the GRA.
Several countries have self-Id. Germany is about to. The May government were going to do this reform. The relevant HoC select committee looked at it again recently and (again) came down in favour.
This reform is NOT some sort of ultrawoke outre postmodern absudity. It's objective is to improve (at no cost) the lives of this minority. It has controls in there. There is a solid case for it. People don't have to agree - there's a case against it too - but what I'm sick and tired of is the ignorant illogical half-baked crap I hear on here about it.
I don’t use the word woke so I don’t know why you are throwing that at me but it’s always good to see a man telling women what to think and feel.
No need to swear either 👍
Talking of nasties www.terfisaslur.com
Oh gosh it's that link from you again. Congrats for so well and promptly illustrating my point.
And I don't like swearing. It takes real idiocy to trigger that from me. So congrats on that too.
He has a point that Johnson's policy decision seemed to be about nothing more than saving his skin and blindsided all established authorities. Will also seems keen to get back to normal. 'Like most I relish life opening up.' Or does he?
'while the new normal could never be the normal of pre-pandemic, it was still normal enough..... This dream is where the vast majority would love us to be. Personally, I delight in the escalating return to normality – dinners, lunches with colleagues, getting out and about much more freely – but I am watchful. On buses, trains and tubes, I take care to wear a mask and make sure, if I can, that I sit with others wearing them. I willingly wear a mask in shops, cinema, theatre or going around galleries. I keep my social distance. I enjoy the possibilities of Zoom, a working life organised around online slots, but saving time on travelling. If asked to take a lateral flow test before a large gathering, I happily comply. I live a life as normally as possible – but remain vigilant about the danger of contracting Covid. It’s how I expect to continue.'
Now he isn't clear if ontinue means indefinite future and it isn't clear whether he sees restrictions applying to men in their 70s like him or if we should all be doing this for ever and eternity. I wonder how Will would have felt in his youth if he had to comply with these impositions on a permanent basis? Over Christmas I was with with my brother and sister in law who have three young children. They aren't overly political people but like many are sick to death of covid. They worry about the impact on their children who've obviously been negatively affected by the pandemic. They were angry at the way those in authority seemed desperate to deny omicron was milder than delta in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
A few days ago I went to see a friend and his partner, both in their early 30s with no kids. I was quite taken aback that my friend had decided against travelling to London due to covid and had been urging his (70ish) mother to only go out once a week, citing no higher authority than Chris Whitty for his concern. His partner's 92 year old grandmother is also part of their close circle and the idea of passing covid on to her horrifies him.
I do get that. But what are we going to do? Live the rest of our lives as semi hermits at the behest of the very old and clinically vulnerable? It isn't entirely obvious that would be a very healthy strategy either. Getting infected with a mild variant of covid might help protect you against a nastier one that comes along later. People's general immunity could be weakening significantly.
When the mask mandate gets dropped I suspect we will see rather a lot of people continuing to wear then in certain circumstances - 2 years gets you used to things.
The mask debate has become so polarised but I think they should still be worn indoors because not to do so puts others at risk at harm. I have avoided covid so far and would really rather not catch it. I know it will damage me mentally and I am wary of the longterm effects of covid. I will continue to wear a mask for the foreseeable and I know many others who do.
Life will not return to how it was for a long time. In some parts of the world it will not do so in our lifetimes and 50 years from now the children of today will still be scarred by the experience.
Some good has come from this pandemic: a recalibration of life's priorities and the marvel of realising that commuting is a stupid way to live the only life you have. Work from home as much as you can and reconnect with nature and the green planet.
The only place I've been to recently where people were still wearing masks was the blood donating centre.
Sadly my place of work (the Uni) still 'strongly recommends' them in public areas, such as when moving round corridors etc. I think this has come from above (so advice from DFE) and I'm not convinced it will change when all the restrictions go. After all, its only a recommendation currently.
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Got a link?
Evidence of Trans-rights supporters being expelled from a political party?
I didn't mean a specific exact and opposite instance of the story you posted! I meant as a general point - what both sides do is hunt for the most extreme nonsense from the other side and seek to paint this as being what supporting/opposing (delete to taste) the reform of the GRA is all about. It's a sad sack of a debate it really is. It's become almost impossible to strip all that out and consider the actual proposed reform, what it would entail, what the likely consequences would be in the real world rather than in some lurid dystopia.
But only one side doesn’t want a debate and has a government that only consults with supporters of their policy and has a First Minister who dismisses concerns as “not valid”.
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
I suspect if we had a ledger of Tory politicians and non-Tory politicians working on behalf of the Big Bear, one entry would be comfortably more substantial than the other.
Really? I know I was surprised to find Barry Gardiner had been working for the Chinese. But I'd be surprised to find any Tory or Labour politicians taking the Russian shilling. Even Corbyn - who loses few opportunities to advance Russian interests - I assume does it because he believes the Russians to be in the right rather than because they're paying him. This may sound hopelessly naive.
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
I suspect if we had a ledger of Tory politicians and non-Tory politicians working on behalf of the Big Bear, one entry would be comfortably more substantial than the other.
I wonder how that’s changed over time?
Too a degree, a fair point.
I suspect during the Soviet era your intimation would have been very true. But, the wall fell, over 30 years ago. I daresay St. Jezza would have been quite comfortable filling the Labour Party war chest with Comrade Putin's clean gold up until he (Jez) was defenestrated.
He is having a bad day now Starmer has confirmed there is no rejoining the EU under labour
I’m sure quite a few FBPE types are having a meltdown
Their patron saint is relatively calm this afternoon:
Andrew Adonis @Andrew_Adonis·1h There is a strong case for ultimately rejoining the EU - step by step, after first rejoining the customs union and single market
The case is simple and compelling - namely, the entire prosperity & trade of the country
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
It's quite possible NATO don't want Ukraine. But NATO also don't want Russia to be able - or to be seen to be able to - dictate who can and cannot be in NATO.
Ok, makes sense. But that's a bit meta and muffled to be the massive deal I've seen it presented as.
Wars have been started for far less. FWIW, I think we'll avoid war. My guess is that Putin's objectives are to be able to claim a victory, rather than to actually win any fighting. But I'm far less sure of this than I'd like to be!
I agree. I'll be shocked if they invade. It makes no sense as I see it.
You must have missed Mike's header on Opinium yesterday, or are you being impish? Although for what it is worth Partygate is over and the polls will get tighter.
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
It's quite possible NATO don't want Ukraine. But NATO also don't want Russia to be able - or to be seen to be able to - dictate who can and cannot be in NATO.
Ok, makes sense. But that's a bit meta and muffled to be the massive deal I've seen it presented as.
Wars have been started for far less. FWIW, I think we'll avoid war. My guess is that Putin's objectives are to be able to claim a victory, rather than to actually win any fighting. But I'm far less sure of this than I'd like to be!
What he wants is a Ukraine more like Belarus than Poland, and that seems to be slipping away. If he can't have a Ukraine like Belarus, then as weak as possible will do.
That's why I think some sort of Desert Fox style bombardment is a possibility.
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
I suspect if we had a ledger of Tory politicians and non-Tory politicians working on behalf of the Big Bear, one entry would be comfortably more substantial than the other.
Really? I know I was surprised to find Barry Gardiner had been working for the Chinese. But I'd be surprised to find any Tory or Labour politicians taking the Russian shilling. Even Corbyn - who loses few opportunities to advance Russian interests - I assume does it because he believes the Russians to be in the right rather than because they're paying him. This may sound hopelessly naive.
It sounds quite plausible, but other than with Bazza, you have little evidence to back your assertion. Anyway how is Jeremy Corbyn's return to the fold going?
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
I suspect if we had a ledger of Tory politicians and non-Tory politicians working on behalf of the Big Bear, one entry would be comfortably more substantial than the other.
I wonder how that’s changed over time?
Too a degree, a fair point.
I suspect during the Soviet era your intimation would have been very true. But, the wall fell, over 30 years ago. I daresay St. Jezza would have been quite comfortable filling the Labour Party war chest with Comrade Putin's clean gold up until he (Jez) was defenestrated.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a while now. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
Completely off topic but nice Cyclefree family news.
Youngest son has been offered a starting graduate job as a project manager in the nuclear industry. He had a day long assessment last week by Zoom about which he was very nervous and for which he prepared hard. And it has all paid off. Really pleased for him.
It's his first proper job since graduating, though he has been doing lots of jobs in the interim. And after a tough two years - Covid, not much of a social life and feeling despondent about career prospects etc - it's great that finally opportunities are arriving.
There is also the possibility of secondments abroad which would be fantastic.
Fab and you must be not just pleased but relieved. My son took 2 years to get a good job after uni. He didn't seem worried but I was. Had a constant low level hum of anxiety about it until he got a break.
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
I suspect if we had a ledger of Tory politicians and non-Tory politicians working on behalf of the Big Bear, one entry would be comfortably more substantial than the other.
Really? I know I was surprised to find Barry Gardiner had been working for the Chinese. But I'd be surprised to find any Tory or Labour politicians taking the Russian shilling. Even Corbyn - who loses few opportunities to advance Russian interests - I assume does it because he believes the Russians to be in the right rather than because they're paying him. This may sound hopelessly naive.
It sounds quite plausible, but other than with Bazza, you have little evidence to back your assertion. Anyway how is Jeremy Corbyn's return to the fold going?
We might be at cross purposes. My expectation is that there are no further Lab or Con MPs taking money from hostile foreign powers. I thought your point was the opposite - I.e. that there are?
I think the most toxic part of this state pension argument is the way in which the SNP are managing to create the impression that existing UK state pensions are nothing to do with Scotland.
Scotland is as responsible for UK state pensions as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. It is nonsensical to say that at independence, Scotland could walk away from that responsibility leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland to pick up the tab for Scottish pensions.
The "historical NICs" for which that the SNP is demanding "proper compensation" have been paid by Scottish workers to the people of Scotland, not to "Westminster".
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a while now. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
How about the NI increase becoming a concrete reality? That's due to kick in when people get their April pay, isn't it?
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
The Opiniyum poll had it stretching from 7 to 10 if they introduced new method next week Sunday.
Out of all the polling company’s YouGov do like their excitable variations, just as likely to show a stretch in the next one whilst other firms showing slight tightening.
I think the most toxic part of this state pension argument is the way in which the SNP are managing to create the impression that existing UK state pensions are nothing to do with Scotland.
Scotland is as responsible for UK state pensions as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. It is nonsensical to say that at independence, Scotland could walk away from that responsibility leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland to pick up the tab for Scottish pensions.
The "historical NICs" for which that the SNP is demanding "proper compensation" have been paid by Scottish workers to the people of Scotland, not to "Westminster".
It is every bit as bonkers as the most bonkers stuff ever to come out of the mouth of a Kipper. I dare say that the SNP and UKIP have more in common than either one would like.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
Lol! I've some sympathy, Omnium, having suffered periodically at the hands of Camden Council, but I suspect you may be needing a few binbag ties.
He is having a bad day now Starmer has confirmed there is no rejoining the EU under labour
I’m sure quite a few FBPE types are having a meltdown
Their patron saint is relatively calm this afternoon:
Andrew Adonis @Andrew_Adonis·1h There is a strong case for ultimately rejoining the EU - step by step, after first rejoining the customs union and single market
The case is simple and compelling - namely, the entire prosperity & trade of the country
'Remainers', such as any of us are 'leavers' and 'remainers' anymore, are getting pragmatic it seems. Could this, in fact, be Starmer's Clause IV moment?
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
These days it isn't so much about the political affiliation of the council as how much cash they have left after your mates cut the government grant to nothing. Several Tory councils have gone pop and others teeter on the edge, many Labour run councils are still afloat.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a while now. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
How about the NI increase becoming a concrete reality? That's due to kick in when people get their April pay, isn't it?
Not sure I see anything shifting the dial much, Stuart, apart from Johnson's long overdue departure. After that I would expect changes to be gradual.
I certainly wouldn't be calling the next election yet.
I think the most toxic part of this state pension argument is the way in which the SNP are managing to create the impression that existing UK state pensions are nothing to do with Scotland.
Scotland is as responsible for UK state pensions as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. It is nonsensical to say that at independence, Scotland could walk away from that responsibility leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland to pick up the tab for Scottish pensions.
The "historical NICs" for which that the SNP is demanding "proper compensation" have been paid by Scottish workers to the people of Scotland, not to "Westminster".
It is every bit as bonkers as the most bonkers stuff ever to come out of the mouth of a Kipper. I dare say that the SNP and UKIP have more in common than either one would like.
They are both very fond of “othering” and deflecting blame onto someone else. I’d say they have a lot in common. Though in fairness only one of them won a referendum.
The plan to nuke the North York Moors to create a massive gad storage reservoir.
Didn't @Heathener want hydrocarbons from "nuclear" recently? btw I have no idea what gad storage reservoirs are. I just saw nukes and fracking in the same post!
Completely off topic but nice Cyclefree family news.
Youngest son has been offered a starting graduate job as a project manager in the nuclear industry. He had a day long assessment last week by Zoom about which he was very nervous and for which he prepared hard. And it has all paid off. Really pleased for him.
It's his first proper job since graduating, though he has been doing lots of jobs in the interim. And after a tough two years - Covid, not much of a social life and feeling despondent about career prospects etc - it's great that finally opportunities are arriving.
There is also the possibility of secondments abroad which would be fantastic.
Fab and you must be not just pleased but relieved. My son took 2 years to get a good job after uni. He didn't seem worried but I was. Had a constant low level hum of anxiety about it until he got a break.
Delighted for you
Thank you OKC. Quite a while ago now - he's 33 - but it was a mega relief. The hardest thing can be getting an entree into something which is interesting and well paid. So many young people never do, especially those without good degrees or connections, which is sad.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a while now. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
How about the NI increase becoming a concrete reality? That's due to kick in when people get their April pay, isn't it?
Not sure I see anything shifting the dial much, Stuart, apart from Johnson's long overdue departure. After that I would expect changes to be gradual.
I certainly wouldn't be calling the next election yet.
I would expect a honeymoon for the next Conservative Prime Minister, and a polling boost. After that I suspect normal service would resume and economic factors would become more relevant.
Anecdotally speaking I find those I speak to who switched from Labour to the Conservatives in 2019 (despite what polling suggests) still utterly detest the Labour Party, and the association with Corbyn still looms large.
He is having a bad day now Starmer has confirmed there is no rejoining the EU under labour
I’m sure quite a few FBPE types are having a meltdown
Their patron saint is relatively calm this afternoon:
Andrew Adonis @Andrew_Adonis·1h There is a strong case for ultimately rejoining the EU - step by step, after first rejoining the customs union and single market
The case is simple and compelling - namely, the entire prosperity & trade of the country
The calm isn't that surprising. I can't prove it, but I suspect that the number of starry-eyed Europhile True Believers is pretty small, certainly compared with the number who believe in Brexit as a good in itself.
It's one of the reasons 2016 went the way it did- the Leave and Remain sides were roughly balanced numerically, possibly with Remain having a slight edge, but one side contained people who wanted it a lot more.
I think the most toxic part of this state pension argument is the way in which the SNP are managing to create the impression that existing UK state pensions are nothing to do with Scotland.
Scotland is as responsible for UK state pensions as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. It is nonsensical to say that at independence, Scotland could walk away from that responsibility leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland to pick up the tab for Scottish pensions.
The "historical NICs" for which that the SNP is demanding "proper compensation" have been paid by Scottish workers to the people of Scotland, not to "Westminster".
It is every bit as bonkers as the most bonkers stuff ever to come out of the mouth of a Kipper. I dare say that the SNP and UKIP have more in common than either one would like.
They are both very fond of “othering” and deflecting blame onto someone else. I’d say they have a lot in common. Though in fairness only one of them won a referendum.
The thing I really don't get — and I realise I've said this before — is why the hell would you want to even raise the issue of pensions and worry potential supporters? So not only is the SNP claim nonsense it is also politically inept.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a while now. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
How about the NI increase becoming a concrete reality? That's due to kick in when people get their April pay, isn't it?
Not sure I see anything shifting the dial much, Stuart, apart from Johnson's long overdue departure. After that I would expect changes to be gradual.
I certainly wouldn't be calling the next election yet.
I would expect a honeymoon for the next Conservative Prime Minister, and a polling boost. After that I suspect normal service would resume and economic factors would become more relevant.
Anecdotally speaking I find those I speak to who switched from Labour to the Conservatives in 2019 (despite what polling suggests) still utterly detest the Labour Party, and the association with Corbyn still looms large.
I suspect the same is true in reverse - from those who voted anything except Tory because of the fact Bozo is a low level incompetent mobster....
Just again on NATO, I'm still a bit befuddled. If any country can join - and if you do join it means America is pledged to defend you if you are attacked - how can this actually be so in practice? Surely America can't find such a deal acceptable. Why would they be happy to defend any old country from attack? Surely they can say, "No, we wouldn't be prepared to spill blood for you so you can't join, sorry." I must be missing something, I think.
Just again on NATO, I'm still a bit befuddled. If any country can join - and if you do join it means America is pledged to defend you if you are attacked - how can this actually be so in practice? Surely America can't find such a deal acceptable. Why would they be happy to defend any old country from attack? Surely they can say, "No, we wouldn't be prepared to spill blood for you so you can't join, sorry." I must be missing something, I think.
It's limited to European and North American countries. And the US, like every existing member, has a veto on new members.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
These days it isn't so much about the political affiliation of the council as how much cash they have left after your mates cut the government grant to nothing. Several Tory councils have gone pop and others teeter on the edge, many Labour run councils are still afloat.
Westminster really is a good council though. It may well be that they get to be good because they get funding other councils don't.
Camden, Islington - awful. The contrast is remarkable.
Which Tory councils are you thinking of that have gone pop?
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
These days it isn't so much about the political affiliation of the council as how much cash they have left after your mates cut the government grant to nothing. Several Tory councils have gone pop and others teeter on the edge, many Labour run councils are still afloat.
Westminster really is a good council though. It may well be that they get to be good because they get funding other councils don't.
Camden, Islington - awful. The contrast is remarkable.
Which Tory councils are you thinking of that have gone pop?
Camden used to be dreadful - indeed, worse than that - but in more recent years they have improved their reputation considerably
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
These days it isn't so much about the political affiliation of the council as how much cash they have left after your mates cut the government grant to nothing. Several Tory councils have gone pop and others teeter on the edge, many Labour run councils are still afloat.
Westminster really is a good council though. It may well be that they get to be good because they get funding other councils don't.
Camden, Islington - awful. The contrast is remarkable.
Which Tory councils are you thinking of that have gone pop?
Northants, off the top of my head, was one. I'm not sure that there were any others - Croydon and Slough, which are the only other ones I remember recently, were both Labour.
Still, from the sample size we have I don't think we can draw many conclusions.
Labour polling down yet Starmer ratings up across the board, explain that then.
Of course it is amazing to see Tories now celebrate being five points behind, I remember how recently people said Labour was finished
In the present climate Starmer should be out of sight, and 3 consecutive polls has seen labour fall beyond moe
Starmer's lead has only ever been a normal mid term lead, with what has been happening it should have been consistently far more, and as I keep saying the local by-election results this year have been very poor for Labour.
Today's wordle was the first I genuinely thought I might not get. Stumped after 4. Had only 2 letters in wrong places. Lucky with the Hail Mary guess on 5. Done in 6.
Apparently this is a video shot by a pilot or co pilot inside the cockpit of a USAF fighter, possible F-18 or Hornet, the reddit debate goes into this in some depth. The video has been around for many years - probably dates from 2008 (hence the grainy imagery, probably a handheld cassette camera).
is it a fake? What the F is it? The audio is quite bizarre and seems to be mild chatter in a passenger aircraft which does not match the images at all. Murkier and murkier. Yet the video matches prior descriptions of cryptic footage claimed by UAP bods to show UFOS very close indeed to USAF jets - and filmed
For balance, one crucial aspect of an earlier vid which kicked off this whole Flap - the "rotation" of the gimbal UAP has now been, I think, comprehensively debunked
"I met with Mick West and his Gimbal simulator checks out. He answered all of Mechanical Engineer Paul Bradley’s questions and it looks like the Gimbal object spin is related to the pod. I still think range is less than 10nm so no change in my position, still a UAP"
Boris Johnson's increasing momentum continues as Labour lead slashed from 10% to 5% with Redfield and Wilton.
Not sure I'd view it that way - increasing momentum for Johnson - I think it's more the expected narrowing of a frothy big Labour lead. Just a few days without another Johnson scandal is enough for that. I still like Labour's position, all told. Not a done deal by any stretch but I think Starmer could well be on his way to Downing St.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
These days it isn't so much about the political affiliation of the council as how much cash they have left after your mates cut the government grant to nothing. Several Tory councils have gone pop and others teeter on the edge, many Labour run councils are still afloat.
Westminster really is a good council though. It may well be that they get to be good because they get funding other councils don't.
Camden, Islington - awful. The contrast is remarkable.
Which Tory councils are you thinking of that have gone pop?
Camden used to be dreadful - indeed, worse than that - but in more recent years they have improved their reputation considerably
If you walk from Westminster into Camden you can, if you're observant, see the line.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
These days it isn't so much about the political affiliation of the council as how much cash they have left after your mates cut the government grant to nothing. Several Tory councils have gone pop and others teeter on the edge, many Labour run councils are still afloat.
Westminster really is a good council though. It may well be that they get to be good because they get funding other councils don't.
Camden, Islington - awful. The contrast is remarkable.
Which Tory councils are you thinking of that have gone pop?
Camden used to be dreadful - indeed, worse than that - but in more recent years they have improved their reputation considerably
I have no complaints about Camden council. Good and value-for-money services imo.
New analysis suggests that 74% of all money made through ransomware attacks in 2021 went to Russia-linked hackers. Researchers say more than $400 million worth of crypto-currency payments went to groups "highly likely to be affiliated with Russia".
Russia has denied accusations that it is harbouring cyber-criminals.
Researchers also claim "a huge amount of crypto-currency-based money laundering" goes through Russian crypto-companies
Just again on NATO, I'm still a bit befuddled. If any country can join - and if you do join it means America is pledged to defend you if you are attacked - how can this actually be so in practice? Surely America can't find such a deal acceptable. Why would they be happy to defend any old country from attack? Surely they can say, "No, we wouldn't be prepared to spill blood for you so you can't join, sorry." I must be missing something, I think.
It's limited to European and North American countries. And the US, like every existing member, has a veto on new members.
Ah ok, I see. I guess that's not such a nonsense then.
Scottish Conservatives have urged their MPs to publicly push to remove the “politically gangrenous” Boris Johnson from office as the prime minister undertook a muted tour of Scotland.
Today's wordle was the first I genuinely thought I might not get. Stumped after 4. Had only 2 letters in wrong places. Lucky with the Hail Mary guess on 5. Done in 6.
Ah, go to settings and change to Hard Mode for a challenge - it insists you use all hints given at all times. No more fishing…
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a while now. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
How about the NI increase becoming a concrete reality? That's due to kick in when people get their April pay, isn't it?
Not sure I see anything shifting the dial much, Stuart, apart from Johnson's long overdue departure. After that I would expect changes to be gradual.
I certainly wouldn't be calling the next election yet.
I would expect a honeymoon for the next Conservative Prime Minister, and a polling boost. After that I suspect normal service would resume and economic factors would become more relevant.
Anecdotally speaking I find those I speak to who switched from Labour to the Conservatives in 2019 (despite what polling suggests) still utterly detest the Labour Party, and the association with Corbyn still looms large.
That supports my view of the situation. There is a solid majority against many of the policies espoused by labour activists and as national policy under Corbyn. Starmer has signalled a retreat but hasn't reassured sufficiently (yet) and may never do so. I suspect that more of BoJo's disgraceful antics and the likely economic problems would swing more votes to Labour. However, Labour are strongly running against the ideological "grain" of the majority at present and are more than capable of losing the next election which an opposition should really be strong favourites to win.
5pm @thetimesscot splash Scottish Conservatives have urged their MPs to publicly push to remove the “politically gangrenous” Boris Johnson from office as the prime minister undertook a muted tour of Scotland.
Today's wordle was the first I genuinely thought I might not get. Stumped after 4. Had only 2 letters in wrong places. Lucky with the Hail Mary guess on 5. Done in 6.
I think I've got every Wordle in either 3 or 4 attempts, apart from one 5.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
Mate don't take it out on me speak to David Davis. He's your man on the sovereignty spot.
And of course we were sovereign. How could we leave the EU if we weren't?
That's a stupid argument. It is like saying the former Eastern European states were sovereign because they were able to gain independence from the USSR.
This post is a little silly and coming from you quite surprising. It's exactly the same nonsense that some of the more excitable Scottish nationalists come out with when they claim Scotland is a colony. You're better than this.
Nope read what I wrote rather than what you want it to say. If the mere fact you left a bloc means you were always sovereign - which is the idiotic claim made by Topping - then all those former Eastern bloc countries were always sovereign and so is Scotland right now. A claim which is so obviously ludicrous that I am amazed you can even contemplate it.
Ok, let's leave my NATO analogy (it's not a great one, to be fair).
Instead consider enforcement.
Former USSR country, while part of USSR - most senior politician does something directly against USSR policy or rules, what's the punishment? Prosecution. Imprisonment. Worse, perhaps. UDI? The tanks roll in.
Scottish government does something against UK law, e.g. unauthorised referendum, UDI. Possible prosecution (treason?). Theoretically, the tanks roll in (depends how far up the government HYUFD has got!)
UK government, while in EU, does something against EU law (or, say, refuses to enact EU law into domestic law). Or has a referendum on 'independence' without asking EU for permission. Or declares UDI. Enforcement? EU could take UK to court. UK gets told to behave and/or fined? Enforcement? The absolute worst is getting kicked out or perhaps trade sanctions. The EU has no power to try the UK PM, does it? Civil court case, perhaps, but not criminal. Has a referendum on leaving without permission? We didn't need EU permission. UDI? EU points to A50, but in practice we can just tear up the treaties and exit immediately by repealing EU law.
Edit: I accept there is debate over sovereignty, particularly with QMV, but the UK always had the ability to take its toys home if it really didn't like it (as we indeed did). Scotland and the former USSR states do not/did not have that ability. The situations are different. Whether the UK was sovereign does however depend on where you draw that line, so I'm not really arguing on that, just that the USSR is not a good comparison to the EU.
Again not true - at least as far as Scotland is concerned. We all recognise that Scotland has the right to withdraw from the United Kingdom - indeed there has been a vote on that very subject. And yet no one would reasonably claim that Scotland is currently a sovereign state - which is exactly what Topping is saying by equating the right to leave with Sovereignty.
Basically Topping is talking garbage either through ignorance or dishonesty. A country can regain sovereignty through the act of leaving but that does not mean that country was always sovereign.
The line should be the definition - "the authority of a state to govern itself". As long as a country is part of an organisation that can make laws over which the state has no veto it cannot be claimed to be sovereign.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a very long time. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
So long as Boris doesn't lose Westminster. I'll walk my bin-bags to his bloody doorstep every day if he does. I had a brief sojourn living under a Labour council - I'll not willingly do it again.
These days it isn't so much about the political affiliation of the council as how much cash they have left after your mates cut the government grant to nothing. Several Tory councils have gone pop and others teeter on the edge, many Labour run councils are still afloat.
Westminster really is a good council though. It may well be that they get to be good because they get funding other councils don't.
Camden, Islington - awful. The contrast is remarkable.
Which Tory councils are you thinking of that have gone pop?
Camden used to be dreadful - indeed, worse than that - but in more recent years they have improved their reputation considerably
I have no complaints about Camden council. Good and value-for-money services imo.
Today's wordle was the first I genuinely thought I might not get. Stumped after 4. Had only 2 letters in wrong places. Lucky with the Hail Mary guess on 5. Done in 6.
Ah, go to settings and change to Hard Mode for a challenge - it insists you use all hints given at all times. No more fishing…
I found it very difficult today - genuine jeopardy. After five goes I had all the different letters and some slots they couldn't be in - so I could tell it wasn't a word with nice standard letter formation - but it still took me far too long of juggling those letters to find it. Nerdle, on the other hand - after three consecutive 3/6s, my first 2 today.
Today's wordle was the first I genuinely thought I might not get. Stumped after 4. Had only 2 letters in wrong places. Lucky with the Hail Mary guess on 5. Done in 6.
I think I've got every Wordle in either 3 or 4 attempts, apart from one 5.
Today's wordle was the first I genuinely thought I might not get. Stumped after 4. Had only 2 letters in wrong places. Lucky with the Hail Mary guess on 5. Done in 6.
I think I've got every Wordle in either 3 or 4 attempts, apart from one 5.
That's a solid track record. Not exceptional but damn solid.
Wait the Russians just banked Manny's concessions and kept doing whatever they were going to do anyway? Surely not. Wonder what he'll give away next time.
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a while now. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
How about the NI increase becoming a concrete reality? That's due to kick in when people get their April pay, isn't it?
Not sure I see anything shifting the dial much, Stuart, apart from Johnson's long overdue departure. After that I would expect changes to be gradual.
I certainly wouldn't be calling the next election yet.
I would expect a honeymoon for the next Conservative Prime Minister, and a polling boost. After that I suspect normal service would resume and economic factors would become more relevant.
Anecdotally speaking I find those I speak to who switched from Labour to the Conservatives in 2019 (despite what polling suggests) still utterly detest the Labour Party, and the association with Corbyn still looms large.
That supports my view of the situation. There is a solid majority against many of the policies espoused by labour activists and as national policy under Corbyn. Starmer has signalled a retreat but hasn't reassured sufficiently (yet) and may never do so. I suspect that more of BoJo's disgraceful antics and the likely economic problems would swing more votes to Labour. However, Labour are strongly running against the ideological "grain" of the majority at present and are more than capable of losing the next election which an opposition should really be strong favourites to win.
The left are completely marginalized under SKS. That is a stone cold fact so the challenge is only to communicate it to floating voters. I say *only* but of course it's not the best word choice, perception being so crucial in politics.
Just again on NATO, I'm still a bit befuddled. If any country can join - and if you do join it means America is pledged to defend you if you are attacked - how can this actually be so in practice? Surely America can't find such a deal acceptable. Why would they be happy to defend any old country from attack? Surely they can say, "No, we wouldn't be prepared to spill blood for you so you can't join, sorry." I must be missing something, I think.
It's limited to European and North American countries. And the US, like every existing member, has a veto on new members.
Yeah, I think the 'any country can join' at best should be 'any European country that meets the standards of democracy and freedom can apply' with approval subject to unanimous decision of all existing members.
Specifically, "To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement. These criteria include a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions."
The Conservative vote has been static at around 33/34% for a while now. The Traffic Light Alliance has been correspondingly static at around 55%. There are variations within the TLA however and it is these which explain the fluctuations in Labour's lead.
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
How about the NI increase becoming a concrete reality? That's due to kick in when people get their April pay, isn't it?
Not sure I see anything shifting the dial much, Stuart, apart from Johnson's long overdue departure. After that I would expect changes to be gradual.
I certainly wouldn't be calling the next election yet.
I would expect a honeymoon for the next Conservative Prime Minister, and a polling boost. After that I suspect normal service would resume and economic factors would become more relevant.
Anecdotally speaking I find those I speak to who switched from Labour to the Conservatives in 2019 (despite what polling suggests) still utterly detest the Labour Party, and the association with Corbyn still looms large.
That supports my view of the situation. There is a solid majority against many of the policies espoused by labour activists and as national policy under Corbyn. Starmer has signalled a retreat but hasn't reassured sufficiently (yet) and may never do so. I suspect that more of BoJo's disgraceful antics and the likely economic problems would swing more votes to Labour. However, Labour are strongly running against the ideological "grain" of the majority at present and are more than capable of losing the next election which an opposition should really be strong favourites to win.
"Ideological grain" is a good term. I'm as sure as needs be that this photo will be memed for the election campaign:
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
I suspect if we had a ledger of Tory politicians and non-Tory politicians working on behalf of the Big Bear, one entry would be comfortably more substantial than the other.
Really? I know I was surprised to find Barry Gardiner had been working for the Chinese. But I'd be surprised to find any Tory or Labour politicians taking the Russian shilling. Even Corbyn - who loses few opportunities to advance Russian interests - I assume does it because he believes the Russians to be in the right rather than because they're paying him. This may sound hopelessly naive.
Yes hopelessly naive, the Americans trying to control Russian money call London Londongrad, and explicitly talk about links to the Conservative party.
This is from the Centre for American Progress, according to Politico the most influential think tank under Bidens administration:
"Establish a standing U.S.-U.K. joint counter-kleptocracy working group. The United States and the United Kingdom should work closely together to counter Russian kleptocrats. The United Kingdom, in particular, has become a major hub for Russian oligarchs and their wealth, with London gaining the moniker “Londongrad.” Uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry."
Comments
Young Conservatives do get cheaper tickets for the big boy conferences though, which is nice I guess.
EXCL: Labour ex Attorney General Peter Goldsmith takes 'leave of absence' from House of Lords - to not have to declare how much he earns from foreign government clients, including Russia
Today MPs and peers call for the 'absence' system to be scrapped
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1492784038586859526
Might be worth considering for the PM, though.
Three weeks later and we still have green across the board on the dashboard.
Dropping Plan B in England and adding reinfections into these daily reported numbers hasn’t stopped all three metrics from falling.
England reported cases (31,943) are the lowest since 17 November.
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1493256048874082309
Instead consider enforcement.
Former USSR country, while part of USSR - most senior politician does something directly against USSR policy or rules, what's the punishment? Prosecution. Imprisonment. Worse, perhaps. UDI? The tanks roll in.
Scottish government does something against UK law, e.g. unauthorised referendum, UDI. Possible prosecution (treason?). Theoretically, the tanks roll in (depends how far up the government HYUFD has got!)
UK government, while in EU, does something against EU law (or, say, refuses to enact EU law into domestic law). Or has a referendum on 'independence' without asking EU for permission. Or declares UDI. Enforcement? EU could take UK to court. UK gets told to behave and/or fined? Enforcement? The absolute worst is getting kicked out or perhaps trade sanctions. The EU has no power to try the UK PM, does it? Civil court case, perhaps, but not criminal. Has a referendum on leaving without permission? We didn't need EU permission. UDI? EU points to A50, but in practice we can just tear up the treaties and exit immediately by repealing EU law.
Edit: I accept there is debate over sovereignty, particularly with QMV, but the UK always had the ability to take its toys home if it really didn't like it (as we indeed did). Scotland and the former USSR states do not/did not have that ability. The situations are different. Whether the UK was sovereign does however depend on where you draw that line, so I'm not really arguing on that, just that the USSR is not a good comparison to the EU.
And I don't like swearing. It takes real idiocy to trigger that from me. So congrats on that too.
Both YouGov and Opininum have the Labour lead at 3% in their latest surveys. Start of a trend?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2022
I know I was surprised to find Barry Gardiner had been working for the Chinese. But I'd be surprised to find any Tory or Labour politicians taking the Russian shilling.
Even Corbyn - who loses few opportunities to advance Russian interests - I assume does it because he believes the Russians to be in the right rather than because they're paying him.
This may sound hopelessly naive.
I suspect during the Soviet era your intimation would have been very true. But, the wall fell, over 30 years ago. I daresay St. Jezza would have been quite comfortable filling the Labour Party war chest with Comrade Putin's clean gold up until he (Jez) was defenestrated.
Andrew Adonis
@Andrew_Adonis·1h There is a strong case for ultimately rejoining the EU - step by step, after first rejoining the customs union and single market
The case is simple and compelling - namely, the entire prosperity & trade of the country
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1493244861029523457
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/a-valentines-day-love-letter-to-lord-moylan-3567079
That's why I think some sort of Desert Fox style bombardment is a possibility.
2 storms in as many days.
Storm Dudley and then Storm Eunice.
A rough idea of where they will be coming from
https://twitter.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1493261016779661313
I'm not expecting much change before the defenestration of the buffoon in No 10. I am currently predicting that soon after the locals in May, but it's Boris so I'm not betting on it.
Scotland is as responsible for UK state pensions as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. It is nonsensical to say that at independence, Scotland could walk away from that responsibility leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland to pick up the tab for Scottish pensions.
The "historical NICs" for which that the SNP is demanding "proper compensation" have been paid by Scottish workers to the people of Scotland, not to "Westminster".
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1493260910265344005
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceWZslOfEjs
The plan to nuke the North York Moors to create a massive gad storage reservoir.
The Opiniyum poll had it stretching from 7 to 10 if they introduced new method next week Sunday.
Out of all the polling company’s YouGov do like their excitable variations, just as likely to show a stretch in the next one whilst other firms showing slight tightening.
I certainly wouldn't be calling the next election yet.
btw I have no idea what gad storage reservoirs are. I just saw nukes and fracking in the same post!
Anecdotally speaking I find those I speak to who switched from Labour to the Conservatives in 2019 (despite what polling suggests) still utterly detest the Labour Party, and the association with Corbyn still looms large.
It's one of the reasons 2016 went the way it did- the Leave and Remain sides were roughly balanced numerically, possibly with Remain having a slight edge, but one side contained people who wanted it a lot more.
Now My gravy has gone lumpy, I’m going to have to park this for a few minutes.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies@RedfieldWilton·
Westminster Voting Intention (14 Feb):
Labour 38% (-4)
Conservative 33% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 11% (+2)
Green 6% (–)
Reform UK 5% (+1)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Other 3% (–)
Changes +/- 7 Feb
A trend emerges…
Of course it is amazing to see Tories now celebrate being five points behind, I remember how recently people said Labour was finished
Camden, Islington - awful. The contrast is remarkable.
Which Tory councils are you thinking of that have gone pop?
Great to have @Douglas4Moray with us for a campaign session in Perth City South for our @ScotTories candidates Andy Chan & Callum Milne
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1493268048102494211
Still, from the sample size we have I don't think we can draw many conclusions.
It's absolutely amazing that Ed Davey can't make any progress in these times. He's easily the worst leader of the three.
AGAIN
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/pm899t/does_anyone_know_the_story_behind_this_video/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Apparently this is a video shot by a pilot or co pilot inside the cockpit of a USAF fighter, possible F-18 or Hornet, the reddit debate goes into this in some depth. The video has been around for many years - probably dates from 2008 (hence the grainy imagery, probably a handheld cassette camera).
is it a fake? What the F is it? The audio is quite bizarre and seems to be mild chatter in a passenger aircraft which does not match the images at all. Murkier and murkier. Yet the video matches prior descriptions of cryptic footage claimed by UAP bods to show UFOS very close indeed to USAF jets - and filmed
For balance, one crucial aspect of an earlier vid which kicked off this whole Flap - the "rotation" of the gimbal UAP has now been, I think, comprehensively debunked
"I met with Mick West and his Gimbal simulator checks out. He answered all of Mechanical Engineer Paul Bradley’s questions and it looks like the Gimbal object spin is related to the pod. I still think range is less than 10nm so no change in my position, still a UAP"
https://twitter.com/chrisotis78/status/1491454857987108867?s=20&t=ZArEIVQQeQFp4DDaLnDKOw
No argument here
Tin-eared as ever.
Researchers say more than $400 million worth of crypto-currency payments went to groups "highly likely to be affiliated with Russia".
Russia has denied accusations that it is harbouring cyber-criminals.
Researchers also claim "a huge amount of crypto-currency-based money laundering" goes through Russian crypto-companies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60378009
Scottish Conservatives have urged their MPs to publicly push to remove the “politically gangrenous” Boris Johnson from office as the prime minister undertook a muted tour of Scotland.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aee34b60-8db4-11ec-ab9b-59af3878ddff?shareToken=ff79530b668fcb487a7124d617fb917b
Scottish Conservatives have urged their MPs to publicly push to remove the “politically gangrenous” Boris Johnson from office as the prime minister undertook a muted tour of Scotland.
https://twitter.com/KieranPAndrews/status/1493273369516642305
Personally I like that, but I can see it being an issue.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1493268814187876358
Basically Topping is talking garbage either through ignorance or dishonesty. A country can regain sovereignty through the act of leaving but that does not mean that country was always sovereign.
The line should be the definition - "the authority of a state to govern itself". As long as a country is part of an organisation that can make laws over which the state has no veto it cannot be claimed to be sovereign.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1493274222533255170
Nerdle, on the other hand - after three consecutive 3/6s, my first 2 today.
Just finishing up my proposal for the Freeport of Birmingham.....
Specifically, "To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement. These criteria include a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions."
This is from the Centre for American Progress, according to Politico the most influential think tank under Bidens administration:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-the-united-states-should-respond-if-russia-invades-ukraine/
"Establish a standing U.S.-U.K. joint counter-kleptocracy working group. The United States and the United Kingdom should work closely together to counter Russian kleptocrats. The United Kingdom, in particular, has become a major hub for Russian oligarchs and their wealth, with London gaining the moniker “Londongrad.” Uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry."