Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
You really seem to live your whole life and political judgement around day to day opinion polls as if they are the new tablets of stone
In this crisis events will decide, not polls
Is the consensus that Johnson was wise to do a flit to India (and not have to haunt the corridors as it all fell apart) or unwise (as it gave people more freedom of action)?
Boris saw it as a distraction and him on the world stage trying to move on
Opposition and journalist's at home refused to move on
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
For that, the Germans would need to do something that actually impacted their economy for the common good, something they have been noticeably absent at doing for the past few decades. Far easier to bring in an irrelevant policy which hurts everyone (and spares Germany the pain).
Stupid NIMBY, are you saying that there's plenty of housing in this country, no housing shortages and prices are nice and low in the cities due to the abundance of homes for people who need to get on the ladder to buy?
Do you ever stop to think for one second, or are you just permanently outraged regardless of reason?
If the old house building targets haven't been met then that will leave a shortage of homes that need to be made up so the house building target should be increased and met at an even higher level. Not cut the target. If you ever actually stopped to think for yourself for two seconds you might be able to understand that.
NIMBY Councils need to stop moaning about "unrealistic" targets and JFDI get it done.
Increased housebuilding in, say, Central London, will not help even a little bit with levelling up. If the government is serious about levelling up, it needs to stimulate economic activity in new towns or in those that have fallen behind. The easiest way to do this is by building new homes and refurbishing old ones. This is itself will get local economies moving, and new, cheap housing will attract people to move there.
New homes should be built where they're needed, not in order to validate a party slogan. We're not the Soviet Union.
New homes should be built in line with government policy, not to benefit property speculators. An overheated London and left behind regions is no good to anyone. Nor is building new towns a revolutionary idea. Conservative governments used to do it.
London is overheated due to a shortage of housing relative to the number of people living there, not because of an overabundance of constructed homes.
If new housing construction there sees prices come down so property speculators get burnt then I'd see that as a win/win, wouldn't you?
No it is overheated as it is a global city on a par with New York city or Paris or Singapore.
You can build more housing but it will only make a limited impact given people from all over the world will stay pay a lot of money to buy property in London. Plus you need to protect London's parks and greenspaces
There is loads of potential for building more housing in London but it needs expensive infrastructure built alongside it. Eg down my way a huge slew of housing could be built on brownfield sites down the Old Kent Road but it can only happen with the extension of the Bakerloo Line to Lewisham (cost £3bn). From a pure cost benefit point of view it makes sense but finding a mechanism for recovering the infrastructure cost is difficult, and it's not helped by the new government dogma that spending money in London is bad.
That £3B would have much more impact in the north and build at least 3-4 times as many houses. London has sucked the life out of the country for far too long.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Ah yes the Church is purely moral. No feathering their own pockets, covering their own buildings in gold or protecting paedophile priests from them - no sirree purely moral they are.
The Church exists to make politicians look good in contrast.
I am a bit doubtful as to whether a global institution with a couple of billion members and is the largest identifiable grouping on the planet can be characterised in a sentence.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
You praise him too much I think, well below that level.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
I think it's KNOWINGLY mislead parliament which TB didn't do. Incidentally is using TB the new directive from Guto?
I think that Blair knowingly exaggerated the degree of confidence he had in something that he believed to be true (but which turned out not to be). In my view that is quite different from saying something that you categorically know to be untrue.
Much as I despise TB, in retrospect that is exactly what happened, WRT misleading Parliament.
The unacceptable part, for me, was the degree of pressure put on to Civil Servants (of various flavours) to re-work material to support that interpretation. But that is quite different - and not a comparable matter.
Quite. I was against war, partly because WMDs seemed to be a thing which had come from nowhere and not as much of a worry as they were presented, but I never doubted, or heard anyone else doubt, their existence. I just thought Blix an incompetent loser for not finding them quicker.
The thing for me is Saddam.
Not simply that I supported the war simply as I thought it was a good idea to remove Saddam, but that he was playing both sides with regards to WMDs.
He was deliberately creating ambiguity with WMDs. He wanted the USA etc not to be able to conclusively prove that he had WMDs, but he wanted his own enemies (internal and Iran) to think that he did and that he was willing to use them.
Creative ambiguity so that the world thought he had them, so making him stronger, but without proving it, so he wouldn't be attacked, was what suited him perfectly and it worked until Bush and Blair called time on it.
I think Blair thought he had WMDs, in no small part because Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
The problem is that in earlier times, villages would naturally grow into towns, then cities.
The modern idea is to prevent this happening/manage the process in a way that meets the ideas of the... someone.
A further problem is that a part of modern planning theory in the UK was created in times of slowing population growth.
It is a testament to the modern planing system that Prince Charles seems to be better at it (see Poundbury) than the people who lay out the housing estates.
I think Poundbury is pretty shit, but a lot less shit than building x miles of houses with no mixed use.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
Indeed. I wonder how many of the urban rich would support green prices if we directly whacked up their taxes to pay for it? I see no reason why richer urban households who like the green agenda so much should not subsidise their poorer brethren to transition to greener cars. After all, it’s in the best interests of everyone.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
Put in place some decent public transport perhaps.
That's part of the point.
If you want decent public transport without it turning into a financial drain, you need a certain number of potential passengers near the bus/tram/tain stop. The sort of development patterns we had roughly pre-WW2 managed that pretty well, without needing rabbit hutch flats. Once you start having to leave ground space for 1 to 3 cars per household, it's much harder.
The problem with "potential passengers" is that for many journeys it's impossible to improve public transport to be as good as car driving is now. I used to have a commute to the office of 20-30 minutes by car, depending on traffic - or over an hour by any other method.
I'm not really sure how the Conservatives get out of this hole and I'm hardly the right person to suggest options, but here are some thoughts.
HYUFD is correct on one thing, although it pains me to say so. Labour are not at their pre-1997 levels under Tony Blair. They have had good poll leads but they're not storming ahead. Or at least not yet and these things can change and develop. It took a while for Black Wednesday to seep through into polling, and (awful though it is to say) the death of John Smith. Set against HY's point, there is apparently real visceral anger from voters on the doorsteps and this is what has informed the rebellion by tory MP's. That ties in with my anecdotal contacts: people I know who are tory voters or tory leaners are very cross and also hurt, which is something you don't hear mentioned enough. Those lockdowns were bloody awful and many of us made sacrifices.
Into this mix comes the fiscal, financial, economic situation. The cost of living crisis really is biting. Only the most optimistic of optimists can think it is all going to turn around in two years. Labour are starting to lead on all the significant indicators including economic competence, which is remarkable.
Boris Johnson is probably now a liability and would almost certainly lead them into a defeat at the next General Election. The Opposition just have too much on him now. It would be an awful time to be a Conservative candidate.
It seems to me that there are two options for the Conservatives.
1. Follow Johnson like the Gadarene swine over the clifftop. The defeat will lead to a massive upheaval in the party, a lot of soul searching and probably a repeat of what happened after 1997: in other words, at least two terms out of office.
2. The other option is to lance the boil now. Get rid of Johnson, have a mini clear out and a clean up whilst in office. Re-set the party with someone who, above all else, must not be tainted by what has happened and who can match Starmer's obvious decency: a very apt adjective that someone on here mentioned the other day. Reclaim the economic competence mantle. Then they 'might' conceivably be able to pull off a 1992-style win.
Which do they want? Are they weary of office? That can happen.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Bloody hell you are stupid sometimes, have you any idea what it does to an industrial economy to cut off about one third of its energy input overnight?
why not find a type 1 diabetic and confiscate all their insulin on the basis that you aren't forever injecting yourself with that stuff, so why shoud they?
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich = "why don't they just get an Uber like us?"
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Ah yes the Church is purely moral. No feathering their own pockets, covering their own buildings in gold or protecting paedophile priests from them - no sirree purely moral they are.
The Church exists to make politicians look good in contrast.
Welby and Pope Francis are certainly far more personally moral than the average politician
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Bloody hell you are stupid sometimes, have you any idea what it does to an industrial economy to cut off about one third of its energy input overnight?
why not find a type 1 diabetic and confiscate all their insulin on the basis that you aren't forever injecting yourself with that stuff, so why shoud they?
No you're being silly.
Its Germany's own fault they got themselves into the mess of relying so much upon Russian oil imports and I never said they need to do so overnight, but they should be coming up with serious plans as to how and when they will end their reliance upon Russian imports.
It doesn't have to be overnight, even if they were to say eg by the end of the year or next year and make solid progress between now and then, then that would be something serious.
But if your solution is to just put in place speed limits and say that's reducing Russian imports enough then you're not remotely taking the issue seriously.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
I think it's KNOWINGLY mislead parliament which TB didn't do. Incidentally is using TB the new directive from Guto?
I think that Blair knowingly exaggerated the degree of confidence he had in something that he believed to be true (but which turned out not to be). In my view that is quite different from saying something that you categorically know to be untrue.
Much as I despise TB, in retrospect that is exactly what happened, WRT misleading Parliament.
The unacceptable part, for me, was the degree of pressure put on to Civil Servants (of various flavours) to re-work material to support that interpretation. But that is quite different - and not a comparable matter.
Quite. I was against war, partly because WMDs seemed to be a thing which had come from nowhere and not as much of a worry as they were presented, but I never doubted, or heard anyone else doubt, their existence. I just thought Blix an incompetent loser for not finding them quicker.
The thing for me is Saddam.
Not simply that I supported the war simply as I thought it was a good idea to remove Saddam, but that he was playing both sides with regards to WMDs.
He was deliberately creating ambiguity with WMDs. He wanted the USA etc not to be able to conclusively prove that he had WMDs, but he wanted his own enemies (internal and Iran) to think that he did and that he was willing to use them.
Creative ambiguity so that the world thought he had them, so making him stronger, but without proving it, so he wouldn't be attacked, was what suited him perfectly and it worked until Bush and Blair called time on it.
I think Blair thought he had WMDs, in no small part because Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs.
A counter theory is Saddam was Putined by his own underlings: he thought he had WMDs because they told him so, and just embezzled the dosh.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
You really seem to live your whole life and political judgement around day to day opinion polls as if they are the new tablets of stone
In this crisis events will decide, not polls
Is the consensus that Johnson was wise to do a flit to India (and not have to haunt the corridors as it all fell apart) or unwise (as it gave people more freedom of action)?
Boris saw it as a distraction and him on the world stage trying to move on
Opposition and journalist's at home refused to move on
He has morphed from Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle character to Kenneth Williams in a toga. "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy".
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Does diesel count as a 'Russian oil import'?
Of course it does.
Just so I can measure the exactitude of your sanctions sanctimony, what firm sanctions is the UK applying currently to the the Russian diesel that makes up c.20% of UK consumption?
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
I think it's KNOWINGLY mislead parliament which TB didn't do. Incidentally is using TB the new directive from Guto?
I think that Blair knowingly exaggerated the degree of confidence he had in something that he believed to be true (but which turned out not to be). In my view that is quite different from saying something that you categorically know to be untrue.
Much as I despise TB, in retrospect that is exactly what happened, WRT misleading Parliament.
The unacceptable part, for me, was the degree of pressure put on to Civil Servants (of various flavours) to re-work material to support that interpretation. But that is quite different - and not a comparable matter.
Quite. I was against war, partly because WMDs seemed to be a thing which had come from nowhere and not as much of a worry as they were presented, but I never doubted, or heard anyone else doubt, their existence. I just thought Blix an incompetent loser for not finding them quicker.
The thing for me is Saddam.
Not simply that I supported the war simply as I thought it was a good idea to remove Saddam, but that he was playing both sides with regards to WMDs.
He was deliberately creating ambiguity with WMDs. He wanted the USA etc not to be able to conclusively prove that he had WMDs, but he wanted his own enemies (internal and Iran) to think that he did and that he was willing to use them.
Creative ambiguity so that the world thought he had them, so making him stronger, but without proving it, so he wouldn't be attacked, was what suited him perfectly and it worked until Bush and Blair called time on it.
I think Blair thought he had WMDs, in no small part because Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs.
A counter theory is Saddam was Putined by his own underlings: he thought he had WMDs because they told him so, and just embezzled the dosh.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Indeed.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Stupid NIMBY, are you saying that there's plenty of housing in this country, no housing shortages and prices are nice and low in the cities due to the abundance of homes for people who need to get on the ladder to buy?
Do you ever stop to think for one second, or are you just permanently outraged regardless of reason?
If the old house building targets haven't been met then that will leave a shortage of homes that need to be made up so the house building target should be increased and met at an even higher level. Not cut the target. If you ever actually stopped to think for yourself for two seconds you might be able to understand that.
NIMBY Councils need to stop moaning about "unrealistic" targets and JFDI get it done.
Increased housebuilding in, say, Central London, will not help even a little bit with levelling up. If the government is serious about levelling up, it needs to stimulate economic activity in new towns or in those that have fallen behind. The easiest way to do this is by building new homes and refurbishing old ones. This is itself will get local economies moving, and new, cheap housing will attract people to move there.
New homes should be built where they're needed, not in order to validate a party slogan. We're not the Soviet Union.
New homes should be built in line with government policy, not to benefit property speculators. An overheated London and left behind regions is no good to anyone. Nor is building new towns a revolutionary idea. Conservative governments used to do it.
London is overheated due to a shortage of housing relative to the number of people living there, not because of an overabundance of constructed homes.
If new housing construction there sees prices come down so property speculators get burnt then I'd see that as a win/win, wouldn't you?
No it is overheated as it is a global city on a par with New York city or Paris or Singapore.
You can build more housing but it will only make a limited impact given people from all over the world will stay pay a lot of money to buy property in London. Plus you need to protect London's parks and greenspaces
There is loads of potential for building more housing in London but it needs expensive infrastructure built alongside it. Eg down my way a huge slew of housing could be built on brownfield sites down the Old Kent Road but it can only happen with the extension of the Bakerloo Line to Lewisham (cost £3bn). From a pure cost benefit point of view it makes sense but finding a mechanism for recovering the infrastructure cost is difficult, and it's not helped by the new government dogma that spending money in London is bad.
That £3B would have much more impact in the north and build at least 3-4 times as many houses. London has sucked the life out of the country for far too long.
That may or may not be true, you would have to look at the details. In London the housing would be built at a high density which would make a new transit line feasible. A similar but lower density housing development elsewhere probably wouldn't have an economical transit line, and the properties would be sold at a lower cost (because demand relative to supply is lower) so the economic case for the project would be lower. Setting up London vs the rest of the country is just Tory divide and rule, we should be able to support development everywhere it is needed.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Is he ?
Why ?
If Germany, as he suggested, banned Russian fossil fuel imports today, there would be immediate rationing of energy, factories would close, Europe would be plunged into worse economic crisis, and worldwide supply chains would be further disrupted. But the FDP still thinks rich arseholes should have the right to drive 200 mph down the motorway. People would not accept it. What the German government should have done from day 1 is urgently reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Pretending that even introducing a 130 km hour speed limit on the motorways (a pretty much pain free and actually popular measure) is too inconvenient means they still aren't taking it seriously.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Does diesel count as a 'Russian oil import'?
Of course it does.
Just so I can measure the exactitude of your sanctions sanctimony, what firm sanctions is the UK applying currently to the the Russian diesel that makes up c.20% of UK consumption?
The UK has said it will end Russian oil imports by the end of the year.
That should in my eyes include diesel. If it doesn't, then that's a failing of the British government.
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
Seems do-able.
They have to beat Wales in the play offs after they beat Ukraine. You missed it out because you could see that as the weak point in your otherwise faultless master plan.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Not sure that is called for
Germany are the most obstructive EU government over providing military aid and oil and gas sanctions as they look after their own interests following Merkel's made terrible decision to rely on Russia for energy
Rory Stewart really did shit the bed. Self destructing his career just as it was getting going, over a point of principle that was really irrelevant in the grand course.
The other what-if is Osborne. He might have stayed quietly on the backbenchers biding his time. A few sensible comments through the pandemic, don’t get drawn into the Brexit wars. He’d now be the slam dunk choice.
Osborne is the personification of austerity. Not what's needed. Nor are tax hikes. We need to run deficits and fiscal drag for the next decade with inflation allowed to run at rates we haven't seen for a generation. It's going to happen anyway. Time to accept the new paradigm, and be honest with voters. Not boosterism.
This 'being honest with voters' malarkey; how would it work?
"We propose to make you all poorer by making sure inflation runs away upwards for decades so that we can pay back the 2 trillion we have borrowed at about 0.3% interest in monopoly money, massively damaging the interests of savers, pensioners etc making them poorer still. So VOTE FOR US"
No. But something other than we fixed the economy, fastest growth in the G7, trumpeting a tax cutting budget when you've just raised them to historic highs, etc., etc. Thatcher didn't pretend the economy was great when it wasn't. She managed to win. So did Cameron.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Does diesel count as a 'Russian oil import'?
Of course it does.
Just so I can measure the exactitude of your sanctions sanctimony, what firm sanctions is the UK applying currently to the the Russian diesel that makes up c.20% of UK consumption?
The UK has said it will end Russian oil imports by the end of the year.
That should in my eyes include diesel. If it doesn't, then that's a failing of the British government.
Well, if it doesn't include diesel it's not an ending of Russian oil imports.
It would be like saying you'll become a vegetarian except for burgers.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Bloody hell you are stupid sometimes, have you any idea what it does to an industrial economy to cut off about one third of its energy input overnight?
why not find a type 1 diabetic and confiscate all their insulin on the basis that you aren't forever injecting yourself with that stuff, so why shoud they?
No you're being silly.
Its Germany's own fault they got themselves into the mess of relying so much upon Russian oil imports and I never said they need to do so overnight, but they should be coming up with serious plans as to how and when they will end their reliance upon Russian imports.
It doesn't have to be overnight, even if they were to say eg by the end of the year or next year and make solid progress between now and then, then that would be something serious.
But if your solution is to just put in place speed limits and say that's reducing Russian imports enough then you're not remotely taking the issue seriously.
Zelensky has found the time to put out propaganda telling German drivers not to fill up with Russian fuel.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
Seems do-able.
Ukraine and then Wales in the play offs. Basically they can lose only 1 of 9 potential games, with the only loss being in one of the three group stage games.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Is he ?
Why ?
If Germany, as he suggested, banned Russian fossil fuel imports today, there would be immediate rationing of energy, factories would close, Europe would be plunged into worse economic crisis, and worldwide supply chains would be further disrupted. But the FDP still thinks rich arseholes should have the right to drive 200 mph down the motorway. People would not accept it. What the German government should have done from day 1 is urgently reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Pretending that even introducing a 130 km hour speed limit on the motorways (a pretty much pain free and actually popular measure) is too inconvenient means they still aren't taking it seriously.
How much oil would be saved by banning people driving like @Dura_Ace? I've driven in Germany a couple of times and I don't recall many people driving especially fast (except for the two laps I did of the ring ).
It would be perfectly feasible to apply punitive tariffs on Russian oil and gas imports. That way companies can continue to buy it if they really want, but either they pay over the odds or Russia has to discount deeply to be competitive.
There has been some (but not much) discussion of this. To my mind it is a much better answer than arguing over when we can execute a complete ban. It also allows for the tariff rate to be ratcheted up or down as things evolve.
It's what the US and EU have been doing to certain Chinese products (and to each other) for years and has immediate supply chain and competitiveness impacts.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Is he ?
Why ?
If Germany, as he suggested, banned Russian fossil fuel imports today, there would be immediate rationing of energy, factories would close, Europe would be plunged into worse economic crisis, and worldwide supply chains would be further disrupted. But the FDP still thinks rich arseholes should have the right to drive 200 mph down the motorway. People would not accept it. What the German government should have done from day 1 is urgently reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Pretending that even introducing a 130 km hour speed limit on the motorways (a pretty much pain free and actually popular measure) is too inconvenient means they still aren't taking it seriously.
I never said to ban fossil fuel imports overnight.
The UK has said the imports will be banned by the end of the year. Other nations have equally put in timescale plans, if Germany does the same that will be taking it seriously and have time to sort out issues - but yes it should be painful, sanctions are.
Ending Russian oil imports should be the goal, not stopping "rich arseholes" from driving fast. The fact you're looking at this arse over tit shows you aren't serious about facing the real issue which is the dependence upon Russia.
If a "rich arsehole" is driving a Tesla Roadster at 200mph down the motorway then how much Russian oil are they consuming in doing so? Why is that the target of your venom instead of Russian imports?
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
Seems do-able.
They have to beat Wales in the play offs after they beat Ukraine. You missed it out because you could see that as the weak point in your otherwise faultless master plan.
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
Seems do-able.
The proposed bet was a double, Scotland gets indy and sweeps to victory in the following WC
Tobias Ellwood, the chairman of the defence select committee, said the prime minister was facing a “steady trickle” of resignations and letters of no confidence.
2023 has the benefit of the Party letting* Boris say he will depart next year after we have done al we can for Ukraine but in time or a new leader to be in place for the 2023 Conference and still getting a honeymoon going into a May 2024 election on new boundaries.
*"letting" = not booting him out unceremoniously now
So, 2024 or Later is a beautiful Lay?
Not convinced. I’ll believe Johnson is history when I see his flabby arse wobbling out of Downing Street for the final time.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
Could the news coverage for the Government be any worse than it has been for the past 6 months.
Miliband was much further clear at regular intervals and Cameron had a million times better press coverage than Johnson is getting.
The idea that Starmer is happy with a small poll lead is an interesting take.
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Is he ?
Why ?
If Germany, as he suggested, banned Russian fossil fuel imports today, there would be immediate rationing of energy, factories would close, Europe would be plunged into worse economic crisis, and worldwide supply chains would be further disrupted. But the FDP still thinks rich arseholes should have the right to drive 200 mph down the motorway. People would not accept it. What the German government should have done from day 1 is urgently reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Pretending that even introducing a 130 km hour speed limit on the motorways (a pretty much pain free and actually popular measure) is too inconvenient means they still aren't taking it seriously.
How much oil would be saved by banning people driving like @Dura_Ace? I've driven in Germany a couple of times and I don't recall many people driving especially fast (except for the two laps I did of the ring ).
There are some spectacular speeds observed on the A-bahn, especially in the east where there is less traffic. I was doing 265km/h in my 996 near Erfurt with a 458 up my crack flashing me to get out of the way. I couldn't pull over because there was a Cayenne Turbo towing a jetski at 200+ in the other lane.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Indeed.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Sorry HY.
Well we know you have an ideological agenda so that tunes in with that.
Though of course hell is often as much a part of religion as heaven your comparing effectively the upper echelons of the C of E to Nazis is ludicrous. Though not that surprising given your less than hostile approach to Putin
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
I get my morality from my religion not my politics ultimately
I’ve checked out of hotel one and am slowly headed to my second one in Les Corts. I’ve got a couple of hours until my check in there, so I’ve stopped for some early ‘lunch’ outside the university.
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
Seems do-able.
Did you not miss one? Wales?
If Wales would miss one rather than about six that would be an improvement on their usual performance...
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
Labour is still miles away from Blair pre 1997 levels as Heathener also points out and polling already more 2017 result than 1997 result
Stupid NIMBY, are you saying that there's plenty of housing in this country, no housing shortages and prices are nice and low in the cities due to the abundance of homes for people who need to get on the ladder to buy?
Do you ever stop to think for one second, or are you just permanently outraged regardless of reason?
If the old house building targets haven't been met then that will leave a shortage of homes that need to be made up so the house building target should be increased and met at an even higher level. Not cut the target. If you ever actually stopped to think for yourself for two seconds you might be able to understand that.
NIMBY Councils need to stop moaning about "unrealistic" targets and JFDI get it done.
Increased housebuilding in, say, Central London, will not help even a little bit with levelling up. If the government is serious about levelling up, it needs to stimulate economic activity in new towns or in those that have fallen behind. The easiest way to do this is by building new homes and refurbishing old ones. This is itself will get local economies moving, and new, cheap housing will attract people to move there.
New homes should be built where they're needed, not in order to validate a party slogan. We're not the Soviet Union.
New homes should be built in line with government policy, not to benefit property speculators. An overheated London and left behind regions is no good to anyone. Nor is building new towns a revolutionary idea. Conservative governments used to do it.
London is overheated due to a shortage of housing relative to the number of people living there, not because of an overabundance of constructed homes.
If new housing construction there sees prices come down so property speculators get burnt then I'd see that as a win/win, wouldn't you?
No it is overheated as it is a global city on a par with New York city or Paris or Singapore.
You can build more housing but it will only make a limited impact given people from all over the world will stay pay a lot of money to buy property in London. Plus you need to protect London's parks and greenspaces
There is loads of potential for building more housing in London but it needs expensive infrastructure built alongside it. Eg down my way a huge slew of housing could be built on brownfield sites down the Old Kent Road but it can only happen with the extension of the Bakerloo Line to Lewisham (cost £3bn). From a pure cost benefit point of view it makes sense but finding a mechanism for recovering the infrastructure cost is difficult, and it's not helped by the new government dogma that spending money in London is bad.
That £3B would have much more impact in the north and build at least 3-4 times as many houses. London has sucked the life out of the country for far too long.
That may or may not be true, you would have to look at the details. In London the housing would be built at a high density which would make a new transit line feasible. A similar but lower density housing development elsewhere probably wouldn't have an economical transit line, and the properties would be sold at a lower cost (because demand relative to supply is lower) so the economic case for the project would be lower. Setting up London vs the rest of the country is just Tory divide and rule, we should be able to support development everywhere it is needed.
Though part of the problem for things like the Old Kent Road plans is that building on brownfield is expensive, because of the difficulties of threading new buildings and transit through the middle of an existing, working city.
One of the reason the numbers stacked up reasonably well for Metroland is that the developers were starting with a fairly large, fairly blank sheet. If we obsess with only building on brownfield, then we end up doing things that make a lot less sense.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Does diesel count as a 'Russian oil import'?
Of course it does.
Just so I can measure the exactitude of your sanctions sanctimony, what firm sanctions is the UK applying currently to the the Russian diesel that makes up c.20% of UK consumption?
The UK has said it will end Russian oil imports by the end of the year.
That should in my eyes include diesel. If it doesn't, then that's a failing of the British government.
Well, if it doesn't include diesel it's not an ending of Russian oil imports.
It would be like saying you'll become a vegetarian except for burgers.
I'm a vegetarian. Well, apart from fish, and the occasional steak. I LOVE steak!
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
I get my morality from my religion not my politics ultimately
That's just as well given the example your political leaders are setting!
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
I get my morality from my religion not my politics ultimately
Christianity includes honesty and integrity so maybe you should be calling out Boris
Surprised both main parties lose a point and conservative still at the 34% mark
I would have expected a wider gap
There have been no new allegations, people already know whats happened, Labour may be pushing Partygate to far. The amount of time and money that is being wasted on it may be grating people, especially with the annoucement of yet another enquiry yesterday.
What date will the Nuremberg type trials of Partygate take place?
I believe that if more fines come down the line and when the the Gray report emerges people will be more incensed. A few loyalists keep trying to trivialise it but it's not working is it?
The thing is if we had a PM with honesty and integrity parliament would not have needed to spend the past several months dealing with the Owen Paterson fiasco, the "Wallpaper" scandal, the Lebedev security scare or the PM's numerous lockdown antics and parties. We are where we are because the Tory party knowingly foisted a pathological liar on the country. It was clear most where this was going to end up from day one.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
OMG I finally found a leave promise that actually delivered . Priti Patel told the Asian community to vote for Brexit so more could come to the UK .
And she actually delivered ! I’m sure those who thought by voting leave overall immigration would fall will be delighted .
Funnily the right wing press aren’t moaning about high levels of immigration now ! So it was just fellow Europeans they hated .
Your apologies for accusing them of being nasty racists are notably missing but I suppose that was to be expected.
There was a debate on here the other day about foreign student numbers in the UK. The allegation was again that because of Brexit these numbers were falling but the reality was the opposite with 2021 being the highest number for students and dependents ever, beating the previous record in 2010. It was over 450K.
Basically, if you want to come to the UK don't try to claim asylum, try to become a student of a recognised institution. If you qualify and have that potential the doors are wider open than ever. Which is certainly fine by me.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
Could the news coverage for the Government be any worse than it has been for the past 6 months.
Miliband was much further clear at regular intervals and Cameron had a million times better press coverage than Johnson is getting.
The idea that Starmer is happy with a small poll lead is an interesting take.
Yes, the cost of living crisis about to sweep the nation will make things far worse for the govt as it will affect the vast majority of people in the country.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
I get my morality from my religion not my politics ultimately
And looking at your morality, I've never been happier to be an atheist.
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
Seems do-able.
The proposed bet was a double, Scotland gets indy and sweeps to victory in the following WC
It would be perfectly feasible to apply punitive tariffs on Russian oil and gas imports. That way companies can continue to buy it if they really want, but either they pay over the odds or Russia has to discount deeply to be competitive.
There has been some (but not much) discussion of this. To my mind it is a much better answer than arguing over when we can execute a complete ban. It also allows for the tariff rate to be ratcheted up or down as things evolve.
It's what the US and EU have been doing to certain Chinese products (and to each other) for years and has immediate supply chain and competitiveness impacts.
And you can hand the tariff income over to Ukraine.
Mr. Dickson, interesting, it's poison in German too.
I occasionally try playing videogames auf Deutsch. My German's good enough I'm not left trying to work out how to save/load, but bad enough for much comedy to occur.
The ‘No to Nato’ campaign is showing signs of life in Sweden. At least we’re now going to have a proper debate. Sweden’s ‘alliansfriheten’ seems to have much deeper ideological roots than Finland’s.
If I remember rightly the last time Sweden and Russia went to war was when Russia annexed Finland in 1809. It maintained studious neutrality in both World Wars and refused to join NATO during the Cold War even though they entered into a number of unofficial or semi-official enterprises with it.
Meanwhile Finland has faced repeated threats from Russia ever since it regained its independence in 1917 and shares a long, problematic land border with a neighbour who appears to be suffering from enough collective paranoia to make the State of Israel blink.
I am not surprised that NATO membership is therefore more controversial in Sweden than in Finland. Whether that is ultimately sustainable without radical changes in Russia itself is a different question.
Point of information: Finland did not regain its independence in 1917. Remove the “re”.
Icelandic independence 1944 Finnish independence 1917 Norwegian independence 1905 Swedish independence 1523 Danish unification, first half of the 10th century
The Nordic states are mostly much younger than you’d initially suspect.
Yeah hence Amundsen beating that wazzock Scott to the s pole was even more important than you'd think. Like Scotland gaining independence and then winning the next world cup. As is very likely to happen.
Get down the bookies.
World Cup Winner Scotland 500/1
So beat Ukraine in the play offs, Iran and one of England/USA in the group, Netherlands in the Round of 16, Spain in the QF, Belgium in the Semis and France in the final.
Seems do-able.
The proposed bet was a double, Scotland gets indy and sweeps to victory in the following WC
Surprised both main parties lose a point and conservative still at the 34% mark
I would have expected a wider gap
There have been no new allegations, people already know whats happened, Labour may be pushing Partygate to far. The amount of time and money that is being wasted on it may be grating people, especially with the annoucement of yet another enquiry yesterday.
What date will the Nuremberg type trials of Partygate take place?
I believe that if more fines come down the line and when the the Gray report emerges people will be more incensed. A few loyalists keep trying to trivialise it but it's not working is it?
The thing is if we had a PM with honesty and integrity parliament would not have needed to spend the past several months dealing with the Owen Paterson fiasco, the "Wallpaper" scandal, the Lebedev security scare or the PM's numerous lockdown antics and parties. We are where we are because the Tory party knowingly foisted a pathological liar on the country. It was clear most where this was going to end up from day one.
Johnson has many failings but with the number of leaks that happen from No 10 through Twitter etc and the requirements of the 24 hour news coverage, anyone being PM in the future will have a torrid time. Everything is blown up to be a scandal. I have no idea why anyone would want to be PM anymore.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
Oh come come. Please don't bullshit us on here.
SKS will never, ever, impress you even if he walked on water.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
Could the news coverage for the Government be any worse than it has been for the past 6 months.
Miliband was much further clear at regular intervals and Cameron had a million times better press coverage than Johnson is getting.
The idea that Starmer is happy with a small poll lead is an interesting take.
He's certainly not in safe territory yet, but back then the Green vote was much lower, and we'd not gone through the partisan petrification processes of Brexit which managed to freeze around 60% of the electorate into identitarian voting blocs. Furthermore UKIP was getting between 12-15%.
If we count the LLG combined vote vs the Tory/UKIP/BXP/REFUK bloc it's currently 56% and 55% vs 37-38% on recent polls (SNP+PC 5-6% is a kind of stable baseload and on a different political dimension, so makes little difference).
Looking back at the poll of polls run by politico since 2013, the biggest average Labour lead in the Cameron years was similar to now: 39 to 33%. But LLG at that time totalled 51-52% with the Greens on 2-3%. Tory/UKIP was at 45% in 2013 and up to 48% by 2015. Look at it that way and, notwithstanding the inefficiency of tactical voting, it's a big swing away from the right wing / pro-Brexit parties.
OMG I finally found a leave promise that actually delivered . Priti Patel told the Asian community to vote for Brexit so more could come to the UK .
And she actually delivered ! I’m sure those who thought by voting leave overall immigration would fall will be delighted .
Funnily the right wing press aren’t moaning about high levels of immigration now ! So it was just fellow Europeans they hated .
Your apologies for accusing them of being nasty racists are notably missing but I suppose that was to be expected.
There was a debate on here the other day about foreign student numbers in the UK. The allegation was again that because of Brexit these numbers were falling but the reality was the opposite with 2021 being the highest number for students and dependents ever, beating the previous record in 2010. It was over 450K.
Basically, if you want to come to the UK don't try to claim asylum, try to become a student of a recognised institution. If you qualify and have that potential the doors are wider open than ever. Which is certainly fine by me.
I’m delighted to see an increase in student numbers as they add a lot to the economy and enrich the country culturally . My point is that the right wing press have gone very quiet about immigration even as numbers have risen significantly. Clearly they’re embarrassed to talk about it now as it shatters the arguments they made during the referendum .
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
I think you'll be waiting a bit longer. I think I've said before, Johnson is pretty ideologically agnostic and without scruple. There isn't much that Starmer can come up with that Boris won't nick.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
Oh come come. Please don't bullshit us on here.
SKS will never, ever, impress you even if he walked on water.
It really does feel like yesterday marked a considerable shift - and I think the assessment is correct that a lot of it is about MPs going back to their constituencies and realising how this is going down outside Westminster... https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1517235214333980672
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
I think you'll be waiting a bit longer. I think I've said before, Johnson is pretty ideologically agnostic and without scruple. There isn't much that Starmer can come up with that Boris won't nick.
That's a fair point and could explain why SKS looks like he's trying to win by default.
Surely under current circumstance and with current Polls even SKS can regain at least 8 Councils and 334 Councillors in this set of LE 2022 seats to put him on par with Corbyn
OMG I finally found a leave promise that actually delivered . Priti Patel told the Asian community to vote for Brexit so more could come to the UK .
And she actually delivered ! I’m sure those who thought by voting leave overall immigration would fall will be delighted .
Funnily the right wing press aren’t moaning about high levels of immigration now ! So it was just fellow Europeans they hated .
Your apologies for accusing them of being nasty racists are notably missing but I suppose that was to be expected.
There was a debate on here the other day about foreign student numbers in the UK. The allegation was again that because of Brexit these numbers were falling but the reality was the opposite with 2021 being the highest number for students and dependents ever, beating the previous record in 2010. It was over 450K.
Basically, if you want to come to the UK don't try to claim asylum, try to become a student of a recognised institution. If you qualify and have that potential the doors are wider open than ever. Which is certainly fine by me.
I’m delighted to see an increase in student numbers as they add a lot to the economy and enrich the country culturally . My point is that the right wing press have gone very quiet about immigration even as numbers have risen significantly. Clearly they’re embarrassed to talk about it now as it shatters the arguments they made during the referendum .
Or people aren't xenophobic and legal, controlled immigration isn't a problem?
OMG I finally found a leave promise that actually delivered . Priti Patel told the Asian community to vote for Brexit so more could come to the UK .
And she actually delivered ! I’m sure those who thought by voting leave overall immigration would fall will be delighted .
Funnily the right wing press aren’t moaning about high levels of immigration now ! So it was just fellow Europeans they hated .
Your apologies for accusing them of being nasty racists are notably missing but I suppose that was to be expected.
There was a debate on here the other day about foreign student numbers in the UK. The allegation was again that because of Brexit these numbers were falling but the reality was the opposite with 2021 being the highest number for students and dependents ever, beating the previous record in 2010. It was over 450K.
Basically, if you want to come to the UK don't try to claim asylum, try to become a student of a recognised institution. If you qualify and have that potential the doors are wider open than ever. Which is certainly fine by me.
I’m delighted to see an increase in student numbers as they add a lot to the economy and enrich the country culturally . My point is that the right wing press have gone very quiet about immigration even as numbers have risen significantly. Clearly they’re embarrassed to talk about it now as it shatters the arguments they made during the referendum .
But you just pointed out it is entirely consistent with what was promised in the referendum. Make your mind up. The key promise was to take back control. We get to say who comes. We get to choose. The Rwanda plan is pie in the sky and unlikely to work but it is an attempt to exclude asylum seekers from the UK as the last category that is self choosing. The ideal is clear, the practicalities difficult.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
Could the news coverage for the Government be any worse than it has been for the past 6 months.
Miliband was much further clear at regular intervals and Cameron had a million times better press coverage than Johnson is getting.
The idea that Starmer is happy with a small poll lead is an interesting take.
Yes it could. Most of the news coverage over the past 2 months has been dominated by a foreign war in which your mate has done his best to try and salvage his reputation.
Johnson, much like Thatcher with the Falklands, has had a "good war" so far and used it to divert from a lousy domestic situation. But Johnson, unlike Thatcher, will not be emerging from his foreign war with a poll lead, whether or not it ends now or goes on for many months yet.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Indeed.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Sorry HY.
Well we know you have an ideological agenda so that tunes in with that.
Though of course hell is often as much a part of religion as heaven your comparing effectively the upper echelons of the C of E to Nazis is ludicrous. Though not that surprising given your less than hostile approach to Putin
Um.
How you managed to pull Nazis into my friend's comment about the CofE I have no idea but it says quite a lot about you and how you manage to alienate everybody on here. Sometimes think first.
As for Putin, I loathe him. I almost alone suggested we should stop our mealy-mouthed disingenuity towards Ukraine by backing Zelensky's request for a No Fly Zone.
I'm probably more anti-Putin than anyone on here. Anyone who supports the tory party is in no position to lecture others about being insufficiently anti-Putin. You have been trousering his money into your party coffers for years: freely associating with Putin's chums, giving them safe haven in London, playing tennis matches with them, going to their fundraising dinners, handing out peerages to them, and permitting them to wash Putin's dirty money through London, siphoning off large wodges of it into the CCHQ coffers.
Mr. Dickson, interesting, it's poison in German too.
I occasionally try playing videogames auf Deutsch. My German's good enough I'm not left trying to work out how to save/load, but bad enough for much comedy to occur.
About two thirds of modern Swedish vocabulary is from German. German- and Dutch-speakers, and to a lesser extent Scots-speakers, find Swedish easy-peasy.
Johnson has many failings but with the number of leaks that happen from No 10 through Twitter etc and the requirements of the 24 hour news coverage, anyone being PM in the future will have a torrid time. Everything is blown up to be a scandal. I have no idea why anyone would want to be PM anymore.
No other PM in history will fuck up as often or as regularly as BoZo
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
Oh come come. Please don't bullshit us on here.
SKS will never, ever, impress you even if he walked on water.
Please don't respond to my comments.
Ho ho.
The entire concept of blog threads somehow passed you by. Con Home has another url.
Johnson has many failings but with the number of leaks that happen from No 10 through Twitter etc and the requirements of the 24 hour news coverage, anyone being PM in the future will have a torrid time. Everything is blown up to be a scandal. I have no idea why anyone would want to be PM anymore.
No other PM in history will fuck up as often or as regularly as BoZo
If you mean that literally, he still has a little way to go before hitting the heights of Lord Grafton.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
Oh come come. Please don't bullshit us on here.
SKS will never, ever, impress you even if he walked on water.
Please don't respond to my comments.
Ho ho.
The entire concept of blog threads somehow passed you by. Con Home has another url.
That particular troll is already on thin ice - Robert as much as admitted yesterday that s/he should have been banned for breaking blog rules. It's perfectly reasonable to request not to get abuse from someone who clearly despises me because I'm prepared to call him/her a troll and mistrust everything s/he says because of his/her history.
If Edmund's widget still worked, life would be more pleasant.
Johnson, much like Thatcher with the Falklands, has had a "good war" so far and used it to divert from a lousy domestic situation. But Johnson, unlike Thatcher, will not be emerging from his foreign war with a poll lead, whether or not it ends now or goes on for many months yet.
It's not "our" war
BoZo has tried to use it as a shield for his many and obvious faults, but it's not working.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
If and if and if and how much is it going to cost ?
And however much it costs to make public transport 'regular and affordable' it will still not be more convenient.
This is a country where people work in different locations to where they live, their friends and relatives live in different locations, their kids go to school in different locations, they shop in different locations, they spend their leisure time in different locations.
OMG I finally found a leave promise that actually delivered . Priti Patel told the Asian community to vote for Brexit so more could come to the UK .
And she actually delivered ! I’m sure those who thought by voting leave overall immigration would fall will be delighted .
Funnily the right wing press aren’t moaning about high levels of immigration now ! So it was just fellow Europeans they hated .
Your apologies for accusing them of being nasty racists are notably missing but I suppose that was to be expected.
There was a debate on here the other day about foreign student numbers in the UK. The allegation was again that because of Brexit these numbers were falling but the reality was the opposite with 2021 being the highest number for students and dependents ever, beating the previous record in 2010. It was over 450K.
Basically, if you want to come to the UK don't try to claim asylum, try to become a student of a recognised institution. If you qualify and have that potential the doors are wider open than ever. Which is certainly fine by me.
I’m delighted to see an increase in student numbers as they add a lot to the economy and enrich the country culturally . My point is that the right wing press have gone very quiet about immigration even as numbers have risen significantly. Clearly they’re embarrassed to talk about it now as it shatters the arguments they made during the referendum .
But you just pointed out it is entirely consistent with what was promised in the referendum. Make your mind up. The key promise was to take back control. We get to say who comes. We get to choose. The Rwanda plan is pie in the sky and unlikely to work but it is an attempt to exclude asylum seekers from the UK as the last category that is self choosing. The ideal is clear, the practicalities difficult.
You’d have thought that the small “practicality” of breaking international law might concern a lawyer…
Rory Stewart really did shit the bed. Self destructing his career just as it was getting going, over a point of principle that was really irrelevant in the grand course.
The other what-if is Osborne. He might have stayed quietly on the backbenchers biding his time. A few sensible comments through the pandemic, don’t get drawn into the Brexit wars. He’d now be the slam dunk choice.
This is George Osborne:
China’s poor human rights record and lack of democracy should not prevent the UK from becoming its closest economic ally in the West, George Osborne has said.
The Chancellor said China and the UK had “different political systems” but that Britain could be its “best partner in the West”.
Conservative MPs who have called the UK to take a tougher stance against China have been described by George Osborne as “hotheads” who should be “careful what you wish for”.
The former Chancellor, one of the architects of David Cameron’s government’s “golden era” of relations with Beijing, hit out at backbench critics of the Prime Minister’s new foreign and defence strategy.
George Osborne - the UK's equivalent of Gerhard Zhroder.
I agree. He’d be a cluster. Absolutely no clue about foreign affairs other than an entirely transactional paradigm. But he’d walk the leadership vote think.
Labour lead only 6%, still well below the 10% lead for Boris to be forced out
Indeed, and so a moderate polling lead is good news for Keir Starmer. Labour's best chance now is for a discredited Johnson to hang until 2024, with the electorate deciding that it's got no choice but to dump him given that Tory Party wouldn't. Likewise, Starmer needs a decent performance in the May 5th elections, but not one so good that the Conservatives panic.
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
That assumes there is a strong policy offer - or any policy offer - that's yet to be revealed, and that SKS isn't just aiming to win by default. With Corbyn at least you always knew in general what he stood for so what sort of policies he was likely to propose.
Yes it does, but in questioning whether Labour will be putting forward a strong policy offer you make my point. There's scope there for Starmer and his team to surprise people including yourself. There will be a strong policy offer, many current sceptics will be both surprised and impressed by it, and they (if not necessarily you) will react accordingly in the ballot box.
I agree there's scope there - in fact, I said months ago that SKS had an opportunity to impress me and I was waiting for him to take it. And I'm still waiting...
Oh come come. Please don't bullshit us on here.
SKS will never, ever, impress you even if he walked on water.
Please don't respond to my comments.
Ho ho.
The entire concept of blog threads somehow passed you by. Con Home has another url.
That particular troll is already on thin ice - Robert as much as admitted yesterday that s/he should have been banned for breaking blog rules. It's perfectly reasonable to request not to get abuse from someone who clearly despises me because I'm prepared to call him/her a troll and mistrust everything s/he says because of his/her history.
If Edmund's widget still worked, life would be more pleasant.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Is he ?
Why ?
If Germany, as he suggested, banned Russian fossil fuel imports today, there would be immediate rationing of energy, factories would close, Europe would be plunged into worse economic crisis, and worldwide supply chains would be further disrupted. But the FDP still thinks rich arseholes should have the right to drive 200 mph down the motorway. People would not accept it. What the German government should have done from day 1 is urgently reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Pretending that even introducing a 130 km hour speed limit on the motorways (a pretty much pain free and actually popular measure) is too inconvenient means they still aren't taking it seriously.
How much oil would be saved by banning people driving like @Dura_Ace? I've driven in Germany a couple of times and I don't recall many people driving especially fast (except for the two laps I did of the ring ).
There are some spectacular speeds observed on the A-bahn, especially in the east where there is less traffic. I was doing 265km/h in my 996 near Erfurt with a 458 up my crack flashing me to get out of the way. I couldn't pull over because there was a Cayenne Turbo towing a jetski at 200+ in the other lane.
I had my first A-bahn experience last week and I am sorry to admit that I got up to 170km/h then felt scared and couldn't go any faster. At least I know my limits, I suppose.
Mr. Dickson, interesting, it's poison in German too.
I occasionally try playing videogames auf Deutsch. My German's good enough I'm not left trying to work out how to save/load, but bad enough for much comedy to occur.
About two thirds of modern Swedish vocabulary is from German. German- and Dutch-speakers, and to a lesser extent Scots-speakers, find Swedish easy-peasy.
Two-thirds of Swedish vocab is *germanic*, not "from German" It's from Old Norse, which is North Germanic, not West Germanic.
Since we're talking NIMBYs, here's a piece I read recently suggesting that car-dependent suburbia tends to create NIMBY residents in a way that more traditional, higher density urbanism doesn't. It's American, but it's plausible;
The problem with a car-dependent place is that any development at all may be a net negative for the established residents of a neighborhood. There is effectively no concession the developer can offer that turns it into a net positive in the short run. In the long run, infill development is needed to improve the fiscal solvency of these places and to create opportunities to transition away from car-dependence. But in the short run? I get more traffic in front of my house, and with me on the roads I have to drive to the businesses I patronize or work at.
"Transitioning away from car-dependence" is not required.
But investment in better roads can improve existing roads for existing residents while freeing up land to be constructed upon to build more homes.
Case in point, Warrington has had major house building for decades and a lot of that has come with improved transport links. The M62 Junction 8 was opened only in 2002 and that freed up traffic for construction and redevelopment of the old RAF Burtonwood base while opening up a new access point to the motorway for existing residents. From memory, thousands if not more of new homes have been able to be constructed on that repurposed land.
Near to where I live was used as a rat-run to Liverpool which was heavily congested in rush hour. A new bypass has been built and traffic where I live has collapsed as they're now using the bypass instead and now new houses are getting constructed along where the extra transport links have been added.
All that is required is proper investment in roads, not thinking how do we drive people off the roads.
Driving people off the roads is very much the mentality of the urban rich and/or those who believe in increased state control of people's lives.
If people had viable alternative options, like regular and affordable public transport and better cycling infrastructure, and if our towns were designed better, then car use would be lower and everyone would be happier. It's not about driving people off the roads, or at least it shouldn't be.
If and if and if and how much is it going to cost ?
And however much it costs to make public transport 'regular and affordable' it will still not be more convenient.
This is a country where people work in different locations to where they live, their friends and relatives live in different locations, their kids go to school in different locations, they shop in different locations, they spend their leisure time in different locations.
Children is the big one. Ferrying them from school to club to party etc. etc.
You might have missed the FDP claiming last week that Germany couldn't introduce speed limits on the motorways (to encourage lower Russian fossil fuel imports) because they didn't have enough signs.
Total disgrace of a party.
Not seeing the issue there, if you want to stop Russia fossil fuel imports then sanction Russian fossil fuels and ban their imports, which other countries are doing.
Not introduce speed limits.
You're an idiot
Oh really?
What's stopping Germany from sanctioning Russian oil imports as other countries are doing, including this one?
If instead of sanctioning Russian oil imports you're talking about speed limits instead then that's about as much use as a wet fart.
Does diesel count as a 'Russian oil import'?
Of course it does.
Just so I can measure the exactitude of your sanctions sanctimony, what firm sanctions is the UK applying currently to the the Russian diesel that makes up c.20% of UK consumption?
The UK has said it will end Russian oil imports by the end of the year.
That should in my eyes include diesel. If it doesn't, then that's a failing of the British government.
Well, if it doesn't include diesel it's not an ending of Russian oil imports.
It would be like saying you'll become a vegetarian except for burgers.
After 15th May it will be nigh on impossible to trade Russian oil products, that is to say including diesel, gasoline and jet. It’s already very hard indeed to find buyers for these products on the world market due to self sanctions, even Chinese SOEs aren’t touching them.
Johnson has many failings but with the number of leaks that happen from No 10 through Twitter etc and the requirements of the 24 hour news coverage, anyone being PM in the future will have a torrid time. Everything is blown up to be a scandal. I have no idea why anyone would want to be PM anymore.
No other PM in history will fuck up as often or as regularly as BoZo
If the internet existed and there was 24 hour news coverage then all PMs would have "fucked up" as bad. In the past most errors were hidden.
Tory MPs could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The latest way they will try to rationalise it is by saying that he did not deliberatelymislead Parliament. He did it by accident or did not mean to or some such nonsense.
Apart from a few brave souls they are being pathetic, as pathetic as Labour MPs were with Corbyn. Have they learnt nothing from that? Apparently not.
Labour MPs did not remove Blair after he misled Parliament over WMD as the reason to take us to war in Iraq
That's alright then. A PM can do anything provided you can find someone else who did something wrong in the past and got away with it.
Do you have no moral compass at all?
Like or not Blair set the precedent that PMs do not automatically resign even if they misled Parliament
So what. If you see a shop lifter getting away with it do you decide it is ok for you to shop lift or do you decide it is wrong? Again I ask where is your moral compass?
Elections are rarely won by Saints.
If you want a leader who is a purely moral one look to the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury
Gosh, I didn't realise those two were MPs.
They don't need to be, religious leaders are supposed to be near Saints, politicians aren't
If you think religious leaders are near saints you live in a surreal world of make-believe
The Vatican is, particularly, a cesspit of corruption.
Indeed.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Sorry HY.
Well we know you have an ideological agenda so that tunes in with that.
Though of course hell is often as much a part of religion as heaven your comparing effectively the upper echelons of the C of E to Nazis is ludicrous. Though not that surprising given your less than hostile approach to Putin
Um.
How you managed to pull Nazis into my friend's comment about the CofE I have no idea but it says quite a lot about you and how you manage to alienate everybody on here. Sometimes think first.
As for Putin, I loathe him. I almost alone suggested we should stop our mealy-mouthed disingenuity towards Ukraine by backing Zelensky's request for a No Fly Zone.
I'm probably more anti-Putin than anyone on here. Anyone who supports the tory party is in no position to lecture others about being insufficiently anti-Putin. You have been trousering his money into your party coffers for years: freely associating with Putin's chums, giving them safe haven in London, playing tennis matches with them, going to their fundraising dinners, handing out peerages to them, and permitting them to wash Putin's dirty money through London, siphoning off large wodges of it into the CCHQ coffers.
Physician heal thyself.
Tell us your yarn about why you’re using a compromised vpn why don’t you?
Comments
Opposition and journalist's at home refused to move on
Not simply that I supported the war simply as I thought it was a good idea to remove Saddam, but that he was playing both sides with regards to WMDs.
He was deliberately creating ambiguity with WMDs. He wanted the USA etc not to be able to conclusively prove that he had WMDs, but he wanted his own enemies (internal and Iran) to think that he did and that he was willing to use them.
Creative ambiguity so that the world thought he had them, so making him stronger, but without proving it, so he wouldn't be attacked, was what suited him perfectly and it worked until Bush and Blair called time on it.
I think Blair thought he had WMDs, in no small part because Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs.
The modern idea is to prevent this happening/manage the process in a way that meets the ideas of the... someone.
A further problem is that a part of modern planning theory in the UK was created in times of slowing population growth.
It is a testament to the modern planing system that Prince Charles seems to be better at it (see Poundbury) than the people who lay out the housing estates.
I think Poundbury is pretty shit, but a lot less shit than building x miles of houses with no mixed use.
HYUFD is correct on one thing, although it pains me to say so. Labour are not at their pre-1997 levels under Tony Blair. They have had good poll leads but they're not storming ahead. Or at least not yet and these things can change and develop. It took a while for Black Wednesday to seep through into polling, and (awful though it is to say) the death of John Smith. Set against HY's point, there is apparently real visceral anger from voters on the doorsteps and this is what has informed the rebellion by tory MP's. That ties in with my anecdotal contacts: people I know who are tory voters or tory leaners are very cross and also hurt, which is something you don't hear mentioned enough. Those lockdowns were bloody awful and many of us made sacrifices.
Into this mix comes the fiscal, financial, economic situation. The cost of living crisis really is biting. Only the most optimistic of optimists can think it is all going to turn around in two years. Labour are starting to lead on all the significant indicators including economic competence, which is remarkable.
Boris Johnson is probably now a liability and would almost certainly lead them into a defeat at the next General Election. The Opposition just have too much on him now. It would be an awful time to be a Conservative candidate.
It seems to me that there are two options for the Conservatives.
1. Follow Johnson like the Gadarene swine over the clifftop. The defeat will lead to a massive upheaval in the party, a lot of soul searching and probably a repeat of what happened after 1997: in other words, at least two terms out of office.
2. The other option is to lance the boil now. Get rid of Johnson, have a mini clear out and a clean up whilst in office. Re-set the party with someone who, above all else, must not be tainted by what has happened and who can match Starmer's obvious decency: a very apt adjective that someone on here mentioned the other day. Reclaim the economic competence mantle. Then they 'might' conceivably be able to pull off a 1992-style win.
Which do they want? Are they weary of office? That can happen.
why not find a type 1 diabetic and confiscate all their insulin on the basis that you aren't forever injecting yourself with that stuff, so why shoud they?
Don't comfort yourself by relying on a supposed iron rule that oppositions always poll better mid term than in the subsequent general election. It's quite possible that 2024 could, like 2017, see Labour improving its polling in the campaign itself once there's a focus on a strong policy offer that's yet to be revealed.
Seems do-able.
Its Germany's own fault they got themselves into the mess of relying so much upon Russian oil imports and I never said they need to do so overnight, but they should be coming up with serious plans as to how and when they will end their reliance upon Russian imports.
It doesn't have to be overnight, even if they were to say eg by the end of the year or next year and make solid progress between now and then, then that would be something serious.
But if your solution is to just put in place speed limits and say that's reducing Russian imports enough then you're not remotely taking the issue seriously.
A friend of mine who worked at Church House said she had never understood the concept of pure evil until she was in the upper echelons of the CofE.
Sorry HY.
Setting up London vs the rest of the country is just Tory divide and rule, we should be able to support development everywhere it is needed.
That should in my eyes include diesel. If it doesn't, then that's a failing of the British government.
Germany are the most obstructive EU government over providing military aid and oil and gas sanctions as they look after their own interests following Merkel's made terrible decision to rely on Russia for energy
But something other than we fixed the economy, fastest growth in the G7, trumpeting a tax cutting budget when you've just raised them to historic highs, etc., etc.
Thatcher didn't pretend the economy was great when it wasn't. She managed to win. So did Cameron.
It would be like saying you'll become a vegetarian except for burgers.
There has been some (but not much) discussion of this. To my mind it is a much better answer than arguing over when we can execute a complete ban. It also allows for the tariff rate to be ratcheted up or down as things evolve.
It's what the US and EU have been doing to certain Chinese products (and to each other) for years and has immediate supply chain and competitiveness impacts.
The UK has said the imports will be banned by the end of the year. Other nations have equally put in timescale plans, if Germany does the same that will be taking it seriously and have time to sort out issues - but yes it should be painful, sanctions are.
Ending Russian oil imports should be the goal, not stopping "rich arseholes" from driving fast. The fact you're looking at this arse over tit shows you aren't serious about facing the real issue which is the dependence upon Russia.
If a "rich arsehole" is driving a Tesla Roadster at 200mph down the motorway then how much Russian oil are they consuming in doing so? Why is that the target of your venom instead of Russian imports?
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/south-sudan-beats-scotland-4-1-201102083523
seems relevant
Not convinced. I’ll believe Johnson is history when I see his flabby arse wobbling out of Downing Street for the final time.
And she actually delivered ! I’m sure those who thought by voting leave overall immigration would fall will be delighted .
Funnily the right wing press aren’t moaning about high levels of immigration now ! So it was just fellow Europeans they hated .
Could the news coverage for the Government be any worse than it has been for the past 6 months.
Miliband was much further clear at regular intervals and Cameron had a million times better press coverage than Johnson is getting.
The idea that Starmer is happy with a small poll lead is an interesting take.
Though of course hell is often as much a part of religion as heaven your comparing effectively the upper echelons of the C of E to Nazis is ludicrous. Though not that surprising given your less than hostile approach to Putin
One of the reason the numbers stacked up reasonably well for Metroland is that the developers were starting with a fairly large, fairly blank sheet. If we obsess with only building on brownfield, then we end up doing things that make a lot less sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiZy-EuXURM
Of all the four letter words to describe Boris Johnson, what on earth made you choose 'gift'?
The thing is if we had a PM with honesty and integrity parliament would not have needed to spend the past several months dealing with the Owen Paterson fiasco, the "Wallpaper" scandal, the Lebedev security scare or the PM's numerous lockdown antics and parties. We are where we are because the Tory party knowingly foisted a pathological liar on the country. It was clear most where this was going to end up from day one.
There was a debate on here the other day about foreign student numbers in the UK. The allegation was again that because of Brexit these numbers were falling but the reality was the opposite with 2021 being the highest number for students and dependents ever, beating the previous record in 2010. It was over 450K.
Basically, if you want to come to the UK don't try to claim asylum, try to become a student of a recognised institution. If you qualify and have that potential the doors are wider open than ever. Which is certainly fine by me.
@BritainElects
·
1h
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 40% (-1)
CON: 34% (-)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-)
via
@techneUK
, 20 - 21 Apr
Best price WC 500/1
I occasionally try playing videogames auf Deutsch. My German's good enough I'm not left trying to work out how to save/load, but bad enough for much comedy to occur.
SKS will never, ever, impress you even if he walked on water.
If we count the LLG combined vote vs the Tory/UKIP/BXP/REFUK bloc it's currently 56% and 55% vs 37-38% on recent polls (SNP+PC 5-6% is a kind of stable baseload and on a different political dimension, so makes little difference).
Looking back at the poll of polls run by politico since 2013, the biggest average Labour lead in the Cameron years was similar to now: 39 to 33%. But LLG at that time totalled 51-52% with the Greens on 2-3%. Tory/UKIP was at 45% in 2013 and up to 48% by 2015. Look at it that way and, notwithstanding the inefficiency of tactical voting, it's a big swing away from the right wing / pro-Brexit parties.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
Labour Councils Total 44
Councils Change -8
Councillors Total 1,345
Councillors change -334
Surely under current circumstance and with current Polls even SKS can regain at least 8 Councils and 334 Councillors in this set of LE 2022 seats to put him on par with Corbyn
Surely
Johnson, much like Thatcher with the Falklands, has had a "good war" so far and used it to divert from a lousy domestic situation. But Johnson, unlike Thatcher, will not be emerging from his foreign war with a poll lead, whether or not it ends now or goes on for many months yet.
How you managed to pull Nazis into my friend's comment about the CofE I have no idea but it says quite a lot about you and how you manage to alienate everybody on here. Sometimes think first.
As for Putin, I loathe him. I almost alone suggested we should stop our mealy-mouthed disingenuity towards Ukraine by backing Zelensky's request for a No Fly Zone.
I'm probably more anti-Putin than anyone on here. Anyone who supports the tory party is in no position to lecture others about being insufficiently anti-Putin. You have been trousering his money into your party coffers for years: freely associating with Putin's chums, giving them safe haven in London, playing tennis matches with them, going to their fundraising dinners, handing out peerages to them, and permitting them to wash Putin's dirty money through London, siphoning off large wodges of it into the CCHQ coffers.
Physician heal thyself.
The entire concept of blog threads somehow passed you by. Con Home has another url.
If Edmund's widget still worked, life would be more pleasant.
BoZo has tried to use it as a shield for his many and obvious faults, but it's not working.
And however much it costs to make public transport 'regular and affordable' it will still not be more convenient.
This is a country where people work in different locations to where they live, their friends and relatives live in different locations, their kids go to school in different locations, they shop in different locations, they spend their leisure time in different locations.
It's from Old Norse, which is North Germanic, not West Germanic.
I think Danish has more German loan words.
It's because you give it to someone. We have lost that meaning and adopted a French word.