So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
Mhairi Black talking about the HY tendency of the New Party:
I am talking about fascism—fascism wrapped in red, white and blue. You may mock and you may disagree, but fascism does not come in with intentional evil plans or the introduction of leather jackboots. It does not happen like that. It happens subtly.
It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power, when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power.
It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different. It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty. I do not know how far down that road we are. Time will tell, but the things we do in the name of economic growth—the warning signs are there for everyone else to see, whether they admit it or not.
The othering of people. Wrapped in faux-christian send in the tanks patriotism. Avoiding scrutiny and the responsibility that comes with it. And the endless othering of people who we are told can literally be ignored - the end of democracy.
Mhairi Black talking about the HY tendency of the New Party:
I am talking about fascism—fascism wrapped in red, white and blue. You may mock and you may disagree, but fascism does not come in with intentional evil plans or the introduction of leather jackboots. It does not happen like that. It happens subtly.
It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power, when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power.
It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different. It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty. I do not know how far down that road we are. Time will tell, but the things we do in the name of economic growth—the warning signs are there for everyone else to see, whether they admit it or not.
The othering of people. Wrapped in faux-christian send in the tanks patriotism. Avoiding scrutiny and the responsibility that comes with it. And the endless othering of people who we are told can literally be ignored - the end of democracy.
When you keep clashing with people, at some point you have to think perhaps it you not them.
Chequers housekeeper ‘forced out by clash with Carrie Johnson’
Charlotte Vine MBE, who first worked at the prime minister’s official country residence in 2004, left with a payoff in 2020 after signing a non-disclosure agreement.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
Mhairi Black talking about the HY tendency of the New Party:
I am talking about fascism—fascism wrapped in red, white and blue. You may mock and you may disagree, but fascism does not come in with intentional evil plans or the introduction of leather jackboots. It does not happen like that. It happens subtly.
It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power, when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power.
It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different. It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty. I do not know how far down that road we are. Time will tell, but the things we do in the name of economic growth—the warning signs are there for everyone else to see, whether they admit it or not.
The othering of people. Wrapped in faux-christian send in the tanks patriotism. Avoiding scrutiny and the responsibility that comes with it. And the endless othering of people who we are told can literally be ignored - the end of democracy.
Such a killer paragraph from Mike but will the tories see sense?
'His supporters argue that Johnson’s great strength is that he is seen as an election winner. My response is that his victories over the discredited LAB figures of Livingstone and Corbyn are really no big deal.'
OGH has said that before and he's still wrong. Livingstone is only discredited because Boris beat him. Twice.
A Tory winning Labour London even once - let alone twice - really, really is a big deal. A massive deal. Boris's electoral ceiling even now is still far higher than anyone else on the Tory benches (or SKS). The only thing that has changed is that his electoral floor is much lower too.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
Yes that would make sense, especially as demographic changes in those seats favour them in the longer terms.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
x
Hey, how’s that glass house of yours ?
Mr Smithson Jr is going to go totally apeshit at all this off-topicking. IT's going to be VERY quiet tomorrow...
Edit - and true to form, some tosser off-topics it!
It's a bit much to suggest that Boris Johnson is responsible for Carshalton & Wallington voting Conservative.
It had a lot more to do with Jeremy Corbyn. Whilst the LibDem vote share remained the same, the Labour vote fell 6% and that was sufficient to see Colburn cross the line.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
He’s a rigid Conservative, monarchist, and Unionist. He believes the state has the right to exercise power, and violent power, to maintain that status
LOTS of people - almost everyone? - believe some form of this, on the Left and the Right
eg anyone who believes in punishing crimes with force: locking people up, taking away children, perhaps the death penalty. Also anyone who believes we were right to bomb Berlin in 1941 or Baghdad in Whenever believes this. Anyone who believes in the British Army believes this
He makes mistakes, so do we all. He can come across as extreme, so can you, and NPXMP is a self confessed communist - I don’t see you hounding him off the site (nor should you). @HYUFD sticks to his guns, that can be annoying, but many are like this: refusing to admit defeat in an internet argument is a feature not a bug of the internet
The glory of the garden that is PB is its diversity. Let every flower bloom as long as they aren’t violently abusive or threatening
Also, @HYUFD is often highly perceptive about polls, politics, electoral outcomes, he tells it like he sees it. If he thinks something is bad for the Tories, he will say so, and he often gets it right. That is rather valuable on a site dedicated to political BETTING
Sure! The whole point about political extremes is that they always meet in the middle. So why is it controversial to suggest that some on the extreme left have similar perspectives - they certainly exercised them internally in the Labour Party.
The reason that Mhairi Black called this out - and I believe she is right - is because its a slippery slope. Will we end up like a British Third Reich - no don't be silly. But HY makes statements that fit absolutely with the *political* elements of fascist authoritarianism.
Loads of us use throwaway comments we then forget or change./ Not HY. He is absolutely serious when he says that Scot Nats can be ignored. And Labour voters. Or non-Johnsonite Tories. Democracy in his tendency's eyes is there to serve and enrich only its supporters. Everyone else and anything that enables them is an enemy to be crushed. "Crush the saboteurs". "Enemies of the People". "Leftie Lawyers". "Woke". All the other. All must be stopped. And with them the rule of law, freedom of speech etc etc.
I don't want to silence the guy - it is interesting when we stop laughing and realise he's serious. Its all the more reason why Johnson and the lot of them need to follow Corbyn into the political dustbin.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
Yes that would make sense, especially as demographic changes in those seats favour them in the longer terms.
Of course their challenge is how do you organise that without bringing about the rebellion that ends you? Jacob Young in Redcar might have the same IQ as the lemon-top ice cream he is invariably photographed holding, but even he will not just accept the abandonment of defending his seat.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
Yes that would make sense, especially as demographic changes in those seats favour them in the longer terms.
Yes. The Old Ed Balls seat, Yvettes seat, Ed Milibands seat etc, the slightly more rural NE seats, Sunderland area, NE Lincs are the new battlegrounds whilst former battles are now safe Labour If the Tories get 40% in 2024 I expect Ed and Yvette to be out of parliament
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
x
Hey, how’s that glass house of yours ?
Mr Smithson Jr is going to go totally apeshit at all this off-topicking. IT's going to be VERY quiet tomorrow...
One of them was mine, when Heathener accused Leon of doing it. It was too delicious an opportunity not to OT that post. I apologise and will desist.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
He’s a rigid Conservative, monarchist, and Unionist. He believes the state has the right to exercise power, and violent power, to maintain that status
LOTS of people - almost everyone? - believe some form of this, on the Left and the Right
eg anyone who believes in punishing crimes with force: locking people up, taking away children, perhaps the death penalty. Also anyone who believes we were right to bomb Berlin in 1941 or Baghdad in Whenever believes this. Anyone who believes in the British Army believes this
He makes mistakes, so do we all. He can come across as extreme, so can you, and NPXMP is a self confessed communist - I don’t see you hounding him off the site (nor should you). @HYUFD sticks to his guns, that can be annoying, but many are like this: refusing to admit defeat in an internet argument is a feature not a bug of the internet
The glory of the garden that is PB is its diversity. Let every flower bloom as long as they aren’t violently abusive or threatening
Also, @HYUFD is often highly perceptive about polls, politics, electoral outcomes, he tells it like he sees it. If he thinks something is bad for the Tories, he will say so, and he often gets it right. That is rather valuable on a site dedicated to political BETTING
Sure! The whole point about political extremes is that they always meet in the middle. So why is it controversial to suggest that some on the extreme left have similar perspectives - they certainly exercised them internally in the Labour Party.
The reason that Mhairi Black called this out - and I believe she is right - is because its a slippery slope. Will we end up like a British Third Reich - no don't be silly. But HY makes statements that fit absolutely with the *political* elements of fascist authoritarianism.
Loads of us use throwaway comments we then forget or change./ Not HY. He is absolutely serious when he says that Scot Nats can be ignored. And Labour voters. Or non-Johnsonite Tories. Democracy in his tendency's eyes is there to serve and enrich only its supporters. Everyone else and anything that enables them is an enemy to be crushed. "Crush the saboteurs". "Enemies of the People". "Leftie Lawyers". "Woke". All the other. All must be stopped. And with them the rule of law, freedom of speech etc etc.
I don't want to silence the guy - it is interesting when we stop laughing and realise he's serious. Its all the more reason why Johnson and the lot of them need to follow Corbyn into the political dustbin.
Indeed so. In which case, using the word fascism is worse than pointless - it's counterproductive.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
Boris is a populist or poujadist. We don’t need to abuse the word fascism for him, in my opinion.
Notably he lacks the willingness to use or encourage extra-military support. Some US Republicans are much closer along the dial.
Fascism. Authoritarianism. Its all shades. Orban is a fascist, but is very different from Hitler or Mussolini. Because its 2022 and the world and society is completely different.
Such a killer paragraph from Mike but will the tories see sense?
'His supporters argue that Johnson’s great strength is that he is seen as an election winner. My response is that his victories over the discredited LAB figures of Livingstone and Corbyn are really no big deal.'
OGH has said that before and he's still wrong. Livingstone is only discredited because Boris beat him. Twice. .
Erm, no.
Q. What do Livingstone and Corbyn have in common?
A. They're both pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, anti-Semites ... as well as various other nasty character traits and extreme left-wing views.
A centrist, affable, tory was always going to be a vote winner until people realised that he too was a schmuck. Most of my London friends think Johnson was a disastrously bad mayor.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
x
Hey, how’s that glass house of yours ?
Mr Smithson Jr is going to go totally apeshit at all this off-topicking. IT's going to be VERY quiet tomorrow...
Edit - and true to form, some tosser off-topics it!
My understanding is that it's the spam flag that shouldn't be abused, I haven't seen any request from either rcs1000 or PBModerator to not use the off topic button other than a specific purpose.
'...There are enough sensible people in the Conservative Party to form a decent government.'
This is no doubt true, Faro, but they're all on the backbenches, no?
Mostly, yes. But a new PM could see a significant changing of the guard.
I guess what I'm saying is that someone like Hunt taking over necessary but way short of sufficient. I think most people can probably agree to that? I'm only saying that the attitude of "Hunt's in, whoopee, all the problems are gone!" is.. misguided.
The other problem with Hunt, come to think of it, is that while I’d fully expect him to ditch Patel, Braverman, Raab and many of the other loonies, he will have to do SOME deal with the ERG foamers.
Witness his bizarre use of “EUSSR” when he was up against it during the last leadership bid.
Such a killer paragraph from Mike but will the tories see sense?
'His supporters argue that Johnson’s great strength is that he is seen as an election winner. My response is that his victories over the discredited LAB figures of Livingstone and Corbyn are really no big deal.'
OGH has said that before and he's still wrong. Livingstone is only discredited because Boris beat him. Twice.
A Tory winning Labour London even once - let alone twice - really, really is a big deal. A massive deal. Boris's electoral ceiling even now is still far higher than anyone else on the Tory benches (or SKS). The only thing that has changed is that his electoral floor is much lower too.
Yes, but it is quite self fulfilling. When Johnsons electoral career ends in failure (as all political careers do) is his loss because he is discredited, or is he discredited by the loss?
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
Yes that would make sense, especially as demographic changes in those seats favour them in the longer terms.
Of course their challenge is how do you organise that without bringing about the rebellion that ends you? Jacob Young in Redcar might have the same IQ as the lemon-top ice cream he is invariably photographed holding, but even he will not just accept the abandonment of defending his seat.
Same with Richard Holden and the long term trend of his seat is towards the Tories. He will expect help for his unthinking loyalty.
Boris is a populist or poujadist. We don’t need to abuse the word fascism for him, in my opinion.
Notably he lacks the willingness to use or encourage extra-military support. Some US Republicans are much closer along the dial.
Fascism. Authoritarianism. Its all shades. Orban is a fascist, but is very different from Hitler or Mussolini. Because its 2022 and the world and society is completely different.
No, it’s not different.
Fascism lives (whether jackbooted or not) in various Latin American countries and on the edges of the US Republican Party. Maybe too with Orban, I’m not an expert.
I think the dial probably goes populist > authoritarian > fascist.
Boris is a populist, and is engaged in a few authoritarian measures to reduce accountability.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
Remember that the majority of voters were utterly disinterested in Europe beforehand. It was a topic on a few doorsteps in the run up to 2015 but only a scant few. And yet a few years later these voters and especially non-voters turned out in droves to vote for it.
Why? Because of all the reasons talked about - a protest vote, sick of being ignored, no jobs or money or prospects, public services crap, having a hard time but hear about the other getting more and thats unfair.
Brexit has to be seen to be resolving these genuine issues and even the baseless gripes or it has failed. And it isn't doing so. And there is no prospect of doing so. Which means the good people of Sedgefield etc are back to either voting on the tried and tested issues or not voting at all. Tories can't use "we delivered Brexit" when "Brexit" hasn't delivered the promise of BREXIT.
Such a killer paragraph from Mike but will the tories see sense?
'His supporters argue that Johnson’s great strength is that he is seen as an election winner. My response is that his victories over the discredited LAB figures of Livingstone and Corbyn are really no big deal.'
OGH has said that before and he's still wrong. Livingstone is only discredited because Boris beat him. Twice.
A Tory winning Labour London even once - let alone twice - really, really is a big deal. A massive deal. Boris's electoral ceiling even now is still far higher than anyone else on the Tory benches (or SKS). The only thing that has changed is that his electoral floor is much lower too.
Yes, but it is quite self fulfilling. When Johnsons electoral career ends in failure (as all political careers do) is his loss because he is discredited, or is he discredited by the loss?
Corbyn, I'll accept, was discredited before the 2019 election. But Livingstone wasn't before the 2008 election or even the 2012 election - he didn't start going really batshit antisemite until the election of Corbyn emboldened him.
'...There are enough sensible people in the Conservative Party to form a decent government.'
This is no doubt true, Faro, but they're all on the backbenches, no?
Mostly, yes. But a new PM could see a significant changing of the guard.
I guess what I'm saying is that someone like Hunt taking over necessary but way short of sufficient. I think most people can probably agree to that? I'm only saying that the attitude of "Hunt's in, whoopee, all the problems are gone!" is.. misguided.
The other problem with Hunt, come to think of it, is that while I’d fully expect him to ditch Patel, Braverman, Raab and many of the other loonies, he will have to do SOME deal with the ERG foamers.
Witness his bizarre use of “EUSSR” when he was up against it during the last leadership bid.
Ugh, he didn't, did he?
Not the precise term. Just the grossly offensive, provocative, and ahistorical analogy.
Boris is a populist or poujadist. We don’t need to abuse the word fascism for him, in my opinion.
Notably he lacks the willingness to use or encourage extra-military support. Some US Republicans are much closer along the dial.
Fascism. Authoritarianism. Its all shades. Orban is a fascist, but is very different from Hitler or Mussolini. Because its 2022 and the world and society is completely different.
No, it’s not different.
Fascism lives (whether jackbooted or not) in various Latin American countries and on the edges of the US Republican Party. Maybe too with Orban, I’m not an expert.
I think the dial probably goes populist > authoritarian > fascist.
Boris is a populist, and is engaged in a few authoritarian measures to reduce accountability.
But as you've just said, its on the same dial. They were populist. They're introducing authoritarian measures. And dabbling in social messaging and positioning that is fascist. You dial it up and down depending on need and opportunity. And that is precisely what Black raises. "Fascist" isn't just jackboots and blackshirts. Its a tendency, a political direction of travel which we're sliding along.
Such a killer paragraph from Mike but will the tories see sense?
'His supporters argue that Johnson’s great strength is that he is seen as an election winner. My response is that his victories over the discredited LAB figures of Livingstone and Corbyn are really no big deal.'
OGH has said that before and he's still wrong. Livingstone is only discredited because Boris beat him. Twice.
A Tory winning Labour London even once - let alone twice - really, really is a big deal. A massive deal. Boris's electoral ceiling even now is still far higher than anyone else on the Tory benches (or SKS). The only thing that has changed is that his electoral floor is much lower too.
Yes, but it is quite self fulfilling. When Johnsons electoral career ends in failure (as all political careers do) is his loss because he is discredited, or is he discredited by the loss?
Corbyn, I'll accept, was discredited before the 2019 election. But Livingstone wasn't before the 2008 election or even the 2012 election - he didn't start going really batshit antisemite until the election of Corbyn emboldened him.
Hard disagree. He wasn't batshit crazy yet but the rot had started as early as 2005. He lost a large part of the Jewish vote in 2008 because of this exchange three years earlier and it was clear things were going downhill -
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
Yes that would make sense, especially as demographic changes in those seats favour them in the longer terms.
Of course their challenge is how do you organise that without bringing about the rebellion that ends you? Jacob Young in Redcar might have the same IQ as the lemon-top ice cream he is invariably photographed holding, but even he will not just accept the abandonment of defending his seat.
Same with Richard Holden and the long term trend of his seat is towards the Tories. He will expect help for his unthinking loyalty.
But in 2024/5 that seat probably,goes labour.
And that just illustrates their problem. Not only can they not afford to piss off MPs by abandoning them, they can't publicly admit that there is any dissent. It was the same with the Cobyn cult. Couldn't accept the obvious on the ground realities in the run up to 2019 and adapt strategies accordingly. Because to do so was to admit that the Great Leader was not the universally loved figure your entire political ecosystem relies upon.
Boris is a populist or poujadist. We don’t need to abuse the word fascism for him, in my opinion.
Notably he lacks the willingness to use or encourage extra-military support. Some US Republicans are much closer along the dial.
Fascism. Authoritarianism. Its all shades. Orban is a fascist, but is very different from Hitler or Mussolini. Because its 2022 and the world and society is completely different.
No, it’s not different.
Fascism lives (whether jackbooted or not) in various Latin American countries and on the edges of the US Republican Party. Maybe too with Orban, I’m not an expert.
I think the dial probably goes populist > authoritarian > fascist.
Boris is a populist, and is engaged in a few authoritarian measures to reduce accountability.
But as you've just said, its on the same dial. They were populist. They're introducing authoritarian measures. And dabbling in social messaging and positioning that is fascist. You dial it up and down depending on need and opportunity. And that is precisely what Black raises. "Fascist" isn't just jackboots and blackshirts. Its a tendency, a political direction of travel which we're sliding along.
Everything’s on the same dial.
I’m on the dial. I’m a liberal who believes, for example, that Scottish independence is not *merely* a matter for Scottish voters, which puts me on some kind of continuum with HYUFD, even.
Invocations of fascism usually just serve to weaken the underlying argument. Mhairi’s speech was v good but overwrought, frankly.
Keir needs a reverse dead cat to KEEP Boris in situ.
Suggest the next head of the Serious Crimes Unit should be transgender or something.
There’s a real risk that Keir loses if Boris is ousted.
History suggests they'll go for Priti Truss or Raab. The only possibles who haven't compromised themselves by being over supportive nor overtly disloyal by dumping on him. All of them no-hopers. As is two-times loser Hunt.
The only real danger to Starmer-bright human and articulate-is Rishi but Johnson's screwed him before he got out of the blocks.
Almost anyone is a danger to Starmer. He has completely failed to make any impression as LOTO, he is very fortunate to be facing Johnson. He barely leads a fat discredited dog on its deathbed as best PM.
I think you underestimate him. He's not flamboyant nor particularly articulate. But he seems safe. He's a Volvo and after three years with a rust-bucket Trabant which can't pass it's MOT that what voters will settle for
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
Remember that the majority of voters were utterly disinterested in Europe beforehand. It was a topic on a few doorsteps in the run up to 2015 but only a scant few. And yet a few years later these voters and especially non-voters turned out in droves to vote for it.
Why? Because of all the reasons talked about - a protest vote, sick of being ignored, no jobs or money or prospects, public services crap, having a hard time but hear about the other getting more and thats unfair.
Brexit has to be seen to be resolving these genuine issues and even the baseless gripes or it has failed. And it isn't doing so. And there is no prospect of doing so. Which means the good people of Sedgefield etc are back to either voting on the tried and tested issues or not voting at all. Tories can't use "we delivered Brexit" when "Brexit" hasn't delivered the promise of BREXIT.
Labours problem is it sees these seats as being full of sinners who need to repent. Labour blames the voters for voting against what labour sees as the voters self interest. Labour does not think it needs to make an offer to these voters to get them to come ‘home’
An interesting point from the Moore/Cummings interview that people recommended in the last thread.
Cummings says, of Boris:-
But remember, he doesn’t really want to be there very long. All he wants to do is not be a loser and not be put out in disgrace. He’s not actually interested in the job. Even in January 2020, he was saying to me, “God, you know these people who say they want to do this job and go on and on? Well I want to write my Shakespeare book.”
The election was on 12 December. By mid-January he was whinging about what a difficult job it is. I said: “You are Prime Minister and if you want to sit upstairs in the morning and do a bit of writing, that’s up to you, but I wouldn’t run around the building telling everyone that you are finding the job boring. Otherwise, you might find it hard to get people to do what you want”. https://unherd.com/2022/05/dominic-cummings-i-dont-like-parties/
OK it is interesting in that it fits with my own suspicion that Boris has long intended to retire before the next election. Others remind us that Boris will soon overtake Theresa May and Gordon Brown's terms. He might also have in mind Harold Wilson's surprise, although long-planned, resignation at 60; Boris will be 60 in June 2024, though I'm not sure his heart is in it for another two years. Whenever it is, Boris will want to go out as a winner, and on his own terms, not forced out by vonc.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
Yep. There’s a school of thought which says HYUFD is unfailingly polite and mostly harmless.
The problem with this theory is that he’s a lying troll who appears to be pathologically amoral.
By all means he should be free to post, he occasionally makes interesting psephological points; but there’s very little merit in actually engaging with him.
Routine comment on this sort of thing - anonymous posters slagging each other off is the least interesting side of PB. We can decide what we think for ourselves.
But as you've raised it - I think it's valuable to have a loyal Conservative who offers strikingly honest assessments of how they see the outlook, and exchanges with him on prospects are often illuminating. I don't think it's a necessary qualification that they have views that we agree with, or even "acceptable" to most of us. I'd be equally happy to see a Trump or Putin supporter posting here, so long as they had the same policy of being both polite and honest.
Sure, but it’s more trouble than it’s worth to actually engage. He won’t budge, he doesn’t learn, he’s not interested, and he seems to get off on it.
You sound like you want to convert him, GW. Why?
Convert him to what?
I think the reason for posting is to engage. Call me a Habermasian dreamer, if you like.
HYUFD doesn’t post; he sprays.
So, engage with others. There are plenty here that do.
Yess that has been said to me before. It does require some will power, although there have been times where I have refrained, but only because others have taken on the fight, so I feel I am adding nothing.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
x
Hey, how’s that glass house of yours ?
Mr Smithson Jr is going to go totally apeshit at all this off-topicking. IT's going to be VERY quiet tomorrow...
Edit - and true to form, some tosser off-topics it!
My understanding is that it's the spam flag that shouldn't be abused, I haven't seen any request from either rcs1000 or PBModerator to not use the off topic button other than a specific purpose.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
I agree with you on Bishop Auckland. The seat is trending Tory and you just have to look at all the nice new housing estates being thrown up,to see that trend is here to stay.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
New regional GDP data from @ONS shows the North East was the worst-performing UK economic region in the third quarter of 2021. Its economy shrank 1.2% on the previous quarter - the worst fall in the UK - while overall the economy was growing: https://t.co/bqFETzBA4N
The @ONS says the North East saw a fall in the manufacturing sector of 7.9% on previous quarter. The English region that grew the most overall in the quarter was London (2.3%). North West (1.2%) and South West (0.6%) were the others who grew. Yorkshire economy was flat.
This is a quarter that pre-dates the cost of living crisis, the substantial rise in energy bills, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Covid regulations that were still in place were largely pretty light.
All the twits on here tossing out the word Fascism like some halfwit 80s lefty student having a microgasm of outrage should take a fortnight’s holiday in Afghanistan under the Taliban
THAT is Fascism, probably the purest example the world can show, as of today
The worship of violence, the worship of the patriarchy, the total refutation of democracy or liberalism, the brutal intolerance of different opinions, the veneration of some mystical power, the adulation and conflation of creed/party/nation, the cruel and relentless misogyny, the perception of outsiders and unbelievers (and women) as inherently inferior, the deliberate sadism as a public policy…
And on, and on.
Trying to lasso @HYUFD or Boris Johnson into the same paddock as the Taliban is laughable. And pitiful. Stop
Keir needs a reverse dead cat to KEEP Boris in situ.
Suggest the next head of the Serious Crimes Unit should be transgender or something.
There’s a real risk that Keir loses if Boris is ousted.
History suggests they'll go for Priti Truss or Raab. The only possibles who haven't compromised themselves by being over supportive nor overtly disloyal by dumping on him. All of them no-hopers. As is two-times loser Hunt.
The only real danger to Starmer-bright human and articulate-is Rishi but Johnson's screwed him before he got out of the blocks.
Almost anyone is a danger to Starmer. He has completely failed to make any impression as LOTO, he is very fortunate to be facing Johnson. He barely leads a fat discredited dog on its deathbed as best PM.
I think you underestimate him. He's not flamboyant nor particularly articulate. But he seems safe. He's a Volvo and after three years with a rust-bucket Trabant which can't pass it's MOT that what voters will settle for
He's 'not the Trabant' and nothing else. That means the Tories just need something else with an engine and an MOT. Then he will need to be someone offering something and I believe thats where he will struggle. If he hasnt hilariously ended his own career just as BJ goes of course.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
x
Hey, how’s that glass house of yours ?
Mr Smithson Jr is going to go totally apeshit at all this off-topicking. IT's going to be VERY quiet tomorrow...
One of them was mine, when Heathener accused Leon of doing it. It was too delicious an opportunity not to OT that post. I apologise and will desist.
Erm. On topic then. What time did the 11% lead drop on PB?
It’s still only 58, just different ways of cutting the lab, Lib green from the 58
“Are you expecting a busy few days ahead?” “I’m always busy…”
@SirGrahamBrady is the only man in or out of Westminster who knows exactly how many no confidence letters have gone in on the PM’s leadership. Smiling, and staying quiet for now:
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
New regional GDP data from @ONS shows the North East was the worst-performing UK economic region in the third quarter of 2021. Its economy shrank 1.2% on the previous quarter - the worst fall in the UK - while overall the economy was growing: https://t.co/bqFETzBA4N
The @ONS says the North East saw a fall in the manufacturing sector of 7.9% on previous quarter. The English region that grew the most overall in the quarter was London (2.3%). North West (1.2%) and South West (0.6%) were the others who grew. Yorkshire economy was flat.
This is a quarter that pre-dates the cost of living crisis, the substantial rise in energy bills, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Covid regulations that were still in place were largely pretty light.
All the economic analysis suggested that the regions would be worse hit by Brexit than London and the South East.
This is because what exports they do produce skew heavily towards the EU whereas London is more globally orientated.
From memory, the North East was tipped to do the very worst.
They need to suck it up, I’m afraid. They voted for it. They also voted for a liar who was obviously not going to deliver “levelling up” in any form.
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
Such a killer paragraph from Mike but will the tories see sense?
'His supporters argue that Johnson’s great strength is that he is seen as an election winner. My response is that his victories over the discredited LAB figures of Livingstone and Corbyn are really no big deal.'
OGH has said that before and he's still wrong. Livingstone is only discredited because Boris beat him. Twice.
A Tory winning Labour London even once - let alone twice - really, really is a big deal. A massive deal. Boris's electoral ceiling even now is still far higher than anyone else on the Tory benches (or SKS). The only thing that has changed is that his electoral floor is much lower too.
Yes, but it is quite self fulfilling. When Johnsons electoral career ends in failure (as all political careers do) is his loss because he is discredited, or is he discredited by the loss?
It will be interesting to see how he does on his book sales and after dinner speaking. As I have said before I just don't get the fees paid to ex-PMs for after dinner speaking. I used to book speakers for conferences and you can get some great ones for a fraction of the price. I can't imagine May being any good, but she pulls in the money. Some have said it is for the contacts.
What I do believe is that Boris will be a brilliant after dinner speaker anyway and will probably earn a future on the book deals even if he is discredited when leaving office.
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
The fascism of modern Russia can be captured in the emblem of MH17. When Russia put forward multiple, mutually contradictory explanations for what happened, that wasn't incompetence or confusion, that was the authentic voice of fascism. A knowing wink and nod about the unreality of reality.
“Are you expecting a busy few days ahead?” “I’m always busy…”
@SirGrahamBrady is the only man in or out of Westminster who knows exactly how many no confidence letters have gone in on the PM’s leadership. Smiling, and staying quiet for now:
He must be loving this. The last one who got two bites at a leadership challenge was Cranley Onslow, and he only had two leadership elections not all the VONC stuff thrown in.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
x
Hey, how’s that glass house of yours ?
Mr Smithson Jr is going to go totally apeshit at all this off-topicking. IT's going to be VERY quiet tomorrow...
Edit - and true to form, some tosser off-topics it!
My understanding is that it's the spam flag that shouldn't be abused, I haven't seen any request from either rcs1000 or PBModerator to not use the off topic button other than a specific purpose.
Keir needs a reverse dead cat to KEEP Boris in situ.
Suggest the next head of the Serious Crimes Unit should be transgender or something.
There’s a real risk that Keir loses if Boris is ousted.
History suggests they'll go for Priti Truss or Raab. The only possibles who haven't compromised themselves by being over supportive nor overtly disloyal by dumping on him. All of them no-hopers. As is two-times loser Hunt.
The only real danger to Starmer-bright human and articulate-is Rishi but Johnson's screwed him before he got out of the blocks.
Almost anyone is a danger to Starmer. He has completely failed to make any impression as LOTO, he is very fortunate to be facing Johnson. He barely leads a fat discredited dog on its deathbed as best PM.
I think you underestimate him. He's not flamboyant nor particularly articulate. But he seems safe. He's a Volvo and after three years with a rust-bucket Trabant which can't pass it's MOT that what voters will settle for
All the twits on here tossing out the word Fascism like some halfwit 80s lefty student having a microgasm of outrage should take a fortnight’s holiday in Afghanistan under the Taliban
THAT is Fascism, probably the purest example the world can show, as of today
The worship of violence, the worship of the patriarchy, the total refutation of democracy or liberalism, the brutal intolerance of different opinions, the veneration of some mystical power, the adulation and conflation of creed/party/nation, the cruel and relentless misogyny, the perception of outsiders and unbelievers (and women) as inherently inferior, the deliberate sadism as a public policy…
And on, and on.
Trying to lasso @HYUFD or Boris Johnson into the same paddock as the Taliban is laughable. And pitiful. Stop
Absolutely agree with your post. “Fascistic” is so eighties lefty brilliantly lampooned by Rik Mayall in the young ones. As you have demonstrated so often with your posts Leon, PB sets the tone for grown up discussion of politics and current affairs, with much enlightened chat on culture and history too.
The nearest thing Boris Premiership is comparable to is the Reign of Emperor Nero.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
If you think voters are backward-looking and grateful then this would be a vast change from other elections.
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
The fascism of modern Russia can be captured in the emblem of MH17. When Russia put forward multiple, mutually contradictory explanations for what happened, that wasn't incompetence of confusion, that was the authentic voice of fascism. A knowing wink and nod about the unreality of reality.
Necessary but not sufficient. Yes Russia is fascist now, or close to it. The sufficient criteria - whatever Eco says - is the use and worship of violence, esp. extra-judicial violence, to achieve political objectives.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
Do you live or work in the constituency? Or are you looking from a distance without local knowledge, local news, local gossip down the pub...
Keir needs a reverse dead cat to KEEP Boris in situ.
Suggest the next head of the Serious Crimes Unit should be transgender or something.
There’s a real risk that Keir loses if Boris is ousted.
History suggests they'll go for Priti Truss or Raab. The only possibles who haven't compromised themselves by being over supportive nor overtly disloyal by dumping on him. All of them no-hopers. As is two-times loser Hunt.
The only real danger to Starmer-bright human and articulate-is Rishi but Johnson's screwed him before he got out of the blocks.
Almost anyone is a danger to Starmer. He has completely failed to make any impression as LOTO, he is very fortunate to be facing Johnson. He barely leads a fat discredited dog on its deathbed as best PM.
I think you underestimate him. He's not flamboyant nor particularly articulate. But he seems safe. He's a Volvo and after three years with a rust-bucket Trabant which can't pass it's MOT that what voters will settle for
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
New regional GDP data from @ONS shows the North East was the worst-performing UK economic region in the third quarter of 2021. Its economy shrank 1.2% on the previous quarter - the worst fall in the UK - while overall the economy was growing: https://t.co/bqFETzBA4N
The @ONS says the North East saw a fall in the manufacturing sector of 7.9% on previous quarter. The English region that grew the most overall in the quarter was London (2.3%). North West (1.2%) and South West (0.6%) were the others who grew. Yorkshire economy was flat.
This is a quarter that pre-dates the cost of living crisis, the substantial rise in energy bills, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Covid regulations that were still in place were largely pretty light.
All the economic analysis suggested that the regions would be worse hit by Brexit than London and the South East.
This is because what exports they do produce skew heavily towards the EU whereas London is more globally orientated.
From memory, the North East was tipped to do the very worst.
They need to suck it up, I’m afraid. They voted for it. They also voted for a liar who was obviously not going to deliver “levelling up” in any form.
They voted for it, but they were also lied to by the utterly cynical Leave campaign and (wrongly but understandably) thought that things couldn't get any worse for them. It is very sad.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
Remember that the majority of voters were utterly disinterested in Europe beforehand. It was a topic on a few doorsteps in the run up to 2015 but only a scant few. And yet a few years later these voters and especially non-voters turned out in droves to vote for it.
Why? Because of all the reasons talked about - a protest vote, sick of being ignored, no jobs or money or prospects, public services crap, having a hard time but hear about the other getting more and thats unfair.
Brexit has to be seen to be resolving these genuine issues and even the baseless gripes or it has failed. And it isn't doing so. And there is no prospect of doing so. Which means the good people of Sedgefield etc are back to either voting on the tried and tested issues or not voting at all. Tories can't use "we delivered Brexit" when "Brexit" hasn't delivered the promise of BREXIT.
Labours problem is it sees these seats as being full of sinners who need to repent. Labour blames the voters for voting against what labour sees as the voters self interest. Labour does not think it needs to make an offer to these voters to get them to come ‘home’
Which is why I have warned Labour rampers on here for ages that we will see either people stay home or vote for either independents (who are usually mad) or something even more extreme.
Some people will just revert back to their previous voting habit, but others won't.
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
The fascism of modern Russia can be captured in the emblem of MH17. When Russia put forward multiple, mutually contradictory explanations for what happened, that wasn't incompetence or confusion, that was the authentic voice of fascism. A knowing wink and nod about the unreality of reality.
Putin’s guiding hand at the moment is not so much fascism as colonialism. Anyone wish to disagree?
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
Yes that would make sense, especially as demographic changes in those seats favour them in the longer terms.
Yes. The Old Ed Balls seat, Yvettes seat, Ed Milibands seat etc, the slightly more rural NE seats, Sunderland area, NE Lincs are the new battlegrounds whilst former battles are now safe Labour If the Tories get 40% in 2024 I expect Ed and Yvette to be out of parliament
Yep those seats will be lost were the Tories to get 40%+.
I suspect they are going to get little more than the 30-33% they are currently polling and that figure is likely to get way worse as this year continues.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
New regional GDP data from @ONS shows the North East was the worst-performing UK economic region in the third quarter of 2021. Its economy shrank 1.2% on the previous quarter - the worst fall in the UK - while overall the economy was growing: https://t.co/bqFETzBA4N
The @ONS says the North East saw a fall in the manufacturing sector of 7.9% on previous quarter. The English region that grew the most overall in the quarter was London (2.3%). North West (1.2%) and South West (0.6%) were the others who grew. Yorkshire economy was flat.
This is a quarter that pre-dates the cost of living crisis, the substantial rise in energy bills, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Covid regulations that were still in place were largely pretty light.
All the economic analysis suggested that the regions would be worse hit by Brexit than London and the South East.
This is because what exports they do produce skew heavily towards the EU whereas London is more globally orientated.
From memory, the North East was tipped to do the very worst.
They need to suck it up, I’m afraid. They voted for it. They also voted for a liar who was obviously not going to deliver “levelling up” in any form.
It was no different prior to Brexit. So we’re hardly worse off.
Given the vast majority of seats and votes in 2019 went labours way your ignorance is showing.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
Do you live or work in the constituency? Or are you looking from a distance without local knowledge, local news, local gossip down the pub...
I asked @wooliedyed if he lived in another constituency yesterday. If we keep this up he will get paranoid that we trying to track him down.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
x
Hey, how’s that glass house of yours ?
Mr Smithson Jr is going to go totally apeshit at all this off-topicking. IT's going to be VERY quiet tomorrow...
Edit - and true to form, some tosser off-topics it!
My understanding is that it's the spam flag that shouldn't be abused, I haven't seen any request from either rcs1000 or PBModerator to not use the off topic button other than a specific purpose.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
If you think voters are backward-looking and grateful then this would be a vast change from other elections.
The local election results were very much in line with the movements i'm suggesting. The swing against the Tories will be less in the likes of Rother, Normanton, Bishop Auckland etc than in leafy remainia. Obviously the extent of national overall swing will determine what that means locally. If its 10% national swing then sure, the red wall gains probably all go as part of 150 losses
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
The fascism of modern Russia can be captured in the emblem of MH17. When Russia put forward multiple, mutually contradictory explanations for what happened, that wasn't incompetence of confusion, that was the authentic voice of fascism. A knowing wink and nod about the unreality of reality.
Necessary but not sufficient. Yes Russia is fascist now, or close to it. The sufficient criteria - whatever Eco says - is the use and worship of violence, esp. extra-judicial violence, to achieve political objectives.
But by that singular measure, the American colonists who revolted against British rule were fascists. That's clearly not an acceptable conclusion. Their violence was emancipatory and fundamentally democratic. America is not fascist despite glorifying its war exploits to this day. We need something extra in the mix to tease apart fascism from other sources of political violence.
So, the increase in tax rates in Scotland have actually brought in about £200m less than before rather than £500m more. Why is this?
The answer, sadly, is more complicated than a Laffer curve I told you so, although that certainly plays a part. The average income in Scotland has not risen as rapidly as the average income in rUK. This may, in part, be because some of the highest paid jobs, especially in financial services, are drifting southwards. But it also reflects an economy that is becoming ever more public sector dominated where words like "profit" are dirty things.
Kate Forbes, fresh from her High School prom, states that the provision of services must be reset (another word for cut) with the priorities being health, social security and helping firms recover. Not sure how much that last one is getting but social security spending is forecast to increase from 10-14% of the budget over the next 4 years. How are firms going to recover when we don't even have a satisfactory railway service? How on earth do we attract foreign investment when people don't even know what currency we will be using in 5 years time? How can we indulge ourselves with Net Zero, another budget priority, when we have oil and gas waiting to be exploited for that nasty profit thing once again in the North Sea.
Justice is going to be cut, despite an unprecedented backlog of trials from Covid. Victims of crime are going to have to wait even longer for trials where the evidence is all the fainter.
And still we have no opposition worthy of the name. It's a sad state of affairs.
So after this morning I have to get this off my chest (sorry to be so boring just read on by), but I was being told by @HYUFD this morning what I meant in one of my posts even though everyone else knew what I meant was something completely and utterly different and everyone else was right. I don’t even agree with what HYUFD thought I was saying. And yet he continued arguing the point over and over and over again. I mean it comes to something when you are mad enough to tell someone that you know their thoughts better than themselves. It’s not as if what I said was unclear (it was only 14 words) and something I have criticized him of many times (being in awe of his perceived betters).
Just to point out the desperation @hyufd will go to defend an error. Here is one cut and pasted from another day that sent several of us mad. It is typical of his jet powered goalposts:
HYUFD: In 1997, crime was falling thanks to Howard
When shown a link that says that was wrong he says a completely different thing: Crime fell in 1995 and 1996 when Howard was Home Secretary on those stats, thanks for confirming
When it is pointed that wasn’t what he said originally he says: Yes and I was absolutely right. Crime was falling in the last 2 years of the Tory government before Labour took over in 1997
And again: Yes crime was falling when the Tories left office in 1997, in both the previous 2 years of 1996 and 1995 when Howard was Home Secretary.
This goes on for umpteen posts.
He is lying. He didn’t say ‘Crime was falling under Howard’ he said ‘Crime was falling in 1997 thanks to Howard’.
Now I don’t care if he is right. I had no idea, but this blatant lying would embarrass Boris. The daft thing is there are easy facing saving and magnanimous way out, without looking like a lying prat.Try this:
'Whoops I got the 1997 figure wrong but crime was falling in 1995 and 1996 under Howard and then increased when Labour came in in 1997.'
However hyufd can’t accept he ever makes an error, no matter how small or insignificant. He would rather people laugh at him than show he is human.
He's a fascist. And I mean that seriously. Don't pander to him.
Oh do fuck off.
Can't you please stop being so directly rude to people? You're doing it a lot at the moment, using four-letter words about various posters on here who happen to disagree with you about something.
x
Hey, how’s that glass house of yours ?
Mr Smithson Jr is going to go totally apeshit at all this off-topicking. IT's going to be VERY quiet tomorrow...
Edit - and true to form, some tosser off-topics it!
My understanding is that it's the spam flag that shouldn't be abused, I haven't seen any request from either rcs1000 or PBModerator to not use the off topic button other than a specific purpose.
Also, why does anyone flag a post as off topic? Almost all the posts on PB are off topic.
The most common reasons seem to be as an objection to a personal insult (perceived or actual), followed by as a gag when someone has objected to a previous off topicking.
HYUFD is guilty of three types of both deliberate and unintended manipulation and never owns up:
a) Getting it wrong and moving the goal posts as above (deliberate) b) Believing something is correct because it is on the internet (rookie error) c) Completely misinterpreting/misunderstanding the data that he has linked to (accidental and frequent)
In the case of b) and c) he will argue until blue in the face he is correct because it is a ‘Fact’. Here is a classic example of b) and c) together:
A few weeks ago he used a chart of average IQ results by country which he took as ‘Fact’. Unfortunately, it also showed the average IQ of many African and other third world countries were at a level of a very young child (5 – 7) or an adult with a very serious mental handicap. Rather than accept the chart was flawed (at least in this respect) he repeated over and over again it was a ‘Fact’ based entirely on him reading it off the internet. Common sense tells you it is nonsense. He even claimed it was the reason Africans were so poor i.e. they are stupid (which sounds just a touch racist to me).
Sorry everyone. I feel much better now.
Mhairi Black talking about the HY tendency of the New Party:
I am talking about fascism—fascism wrapped in red, white and blue. You may mock and you may disagree, but fascism does not come in with intentional evil plans or the introduction of leather jackboots. It does not happen like that. It happens subtly.
It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power, when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power.
It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different. It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty. I do not know how far down that road we are. Time will tell, but the things we do in the name of economic growth—the warning signs are there for everyone else to see, whether they admit it or not.
The othering of people. Wrapped in faux-christian send in the tanks patriotism. Avoiding scrutiny and the responsibility that comes with it. And the endless othering of people who we are told can literally be ignored - the end of democracy.
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
The fascism of modern Russia can be captured in the emblem of MH17. When Russia put forward multiple, mutually contradictory explanations for what happened, that wasn't incompetence or confusion, that was the authentic voice of fascism. A knowing wink and nod about the unreality of reality.
Putin’s guiding hand at the moment is not so much fascism as colonialism. Anyone wish to disagree?
That's the kind of thing someone would say if all they really knew about Russia was its recent excursions into Ukraine. If you take a quick survey of the internal Russian political landscape as well, you'll find a lot more than "just" colonialism to worry you.
All the twits on here tossing out the word Fascism like some halfwit 80s lefty student having a microgasm of outrage should take a fortnight’s holiday in Afghanistan under the Taliban
THAT is Fascism, probably the purest example the world can show, as of today
The worship of violence, the worship of the patriarchy, the total refutation of democracy or liberalism, the brutal intolerance of different opinions, the veneration of some mystical power, the adulation and conflation of creed/party/nation, the cruel and relentless misogyny, the perception of outsiders and unbelievers (and women) as inherently inferior, the deliberate sadism as a public policy…
And on, and on.
Trying to lasso @HYUFD or Boris Johnson into the same paddock as the Taliban is laughable. And pitiful. Stop
Ah come on. The Taliban is a religious theocracy. Its not remotely fascist even though its very good at repressing people.
I believe she threw the "f-word" into her speech deliberately to get it talked about and it worked going off how many times it has been viewed. Its certainly overblown. But highlights some painful realities that too many people - your good self included - are happy to accept because you are the beneficiary of the othering and of the dismantling of our democratic institutions.
Remember that most of the students who throw "fascist" and "communist" about are usually advocates of the opposing extreme. I'm not. I'm a democrat, and the idea that we just sit back whilst we allow a government to start the dismantling of the rule of law and freedom of speech and assembly is not something I accept.
So, the increase in tax rates in Scotland have actually brought in about £200m less than before rather than £500m more. Why is this?
The answer, sadly, is more complicated than a Laffer curve I told you so, although that certainly plays a part. The average income in Scotland has not risen as rapidly as the average income in rUK. This may, in part, be because some of the highest paid jobs, especially in financial services, are drifting southwards. But it also reflects an economy that is becoming ever more public sector dominated where words like "profit" are dirty things.
Kate Forbes, fresh from her High School prom, states that the provision of services must be reset (another word for cut) with the priorities being health, social security and helping firms recover. Not sure how much that last one is getting but social security spending is forecast to increase from 10-14% of the budget over the next 4 years. How are firms going to recover when we don't even have a satisfactory railway service? How on earth do we attract foreign investment when people don't even know what currency we will be using in 5 years time? How can we indulge ourselves with Net Zero, another budget priority, when we have oil and gas waiting to be exploited for that nasty profit thing once again in the North Sea.
Justice is going to be cut, despite an unprecedented backlog of trials from Covid. Victims of crime are going to have to wait even longer for trials where the evidence is all the fainter.
And still we have no opposition worthy of the name. It's a sad state of affairs.
What's the point of opposition when the excuse used by the SNP will be "we wouldn't have this issue were we Independent (followed by supporter chanting)..
Last week it was in two places that made it certain Boris time is up. Grant Shapps face. And PB.
My reading of PB is it has crossed a sort of Rubicon – the opposition parties, Libdems, Labour, more than happy for this status quo of Boris still there and hope it will go on now all the way up to the general election. It’s the Tory posters I sense leaning towards the idea of turning a page on Boris and his government and having to defend the indefensible on the doorstep and everywhere, and getting a fresh start to rally around instead. By all means correct me if I have this wrong.
The idea Boris remains popular and becomes more popular after he is out is laughable, his time as PM wont be remembered well as time passes.
His spell has been more shit than Gordon Brown. It doesn’t deserve to be longer!
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
The fascism of modern Russia can be captured in the emblem of MH17. When Russia put forward multiple, mutually contradictory explanations for what happened, that wasn't incompetence of confusion, that was the authentic voice of fascism. A knowing wink and nod about the unreality of reality.
Necessary but not sufficient. Yes Russia is fascist now, or close to it. The sufficient criteria - whatever Eco says - is the use and worship of violence, esp. extra-judicial violence, to achieve political objectives.
But by that singular measure, the American colonists who revolted against British rule were fascists. That's clearly not an acceptable conclusion. Their violence was emancipatory and fundamentally democratic. America is not fascist despite glorifying its war exploits to this day. We need something extra in the mix to tease apart fascism from other sources of political violence.
Good point.
Speaking of those colonists, it’s appears they did unspeakably nasty things to the Indians, and were slave-owners besides. Difficult to judge how emancipatory they really were, these days.
We’ve just had Memorial Day, flag-shaggers would LOVE it.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
Remember that the majority of voters were utterly disinterested in Europe beforehand. It was a topic on a few doorsteps in the run up to 2015 but only a scant few. And yet a few years later these voters and especially non-voters turned out in droves to vote for it.
Why? Because of all the reasons talked about - a protest vote, sick of being ignored, no jobs or money or prospects, public services crap, having a hard time but hear about the other getting more and thats unfair.
Brexit has to be seen to be resolving these genuine issues and even the baseless gripes or it has failed. And it isn't doing so. And there is no prospect of doing so. Which means the good people of Sedgefield etc are back to either voting on the tried and tested issues or not voting at all. Tories can't use "we delivered Brexit" when "Brexit" hasn't delivered the promise of BREXIT.
Labours problem is it sees these seats as being full of sinners who need to repent. Labour blames the voters for voting against what labour sees as the voters self interest. Labour does not think it needs to make an offer to these voters to get them to come ‘home’
Which is why I have warned Labour rampers on here for ages that we will see either people stay home or vote for either independents (who are usually mad) or something even more extreme.
Some people will just revert back to their previous voting habit, but others won't.
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
^this. The postmodern nature of it is the entire point. Fascists aren't harking back to the past wanting to go back there when they hark to the past, they're doing so to build a society that takes their twisted version of its values to remake them for an all new society.
"Fascism" is such a contested term, it should be caveated with what the writer means when they say it. For this purpose, I am happiest to defer to Umberto Eco's list of characteristics, and to accept any person or party with a score of around ten or more as being an acceptable target for the word.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
The fascism of modern Russia can be captured in the emblem of MH17. When Russia put forward multiple, mutually contradictory explanations for what happened, that wasn't incompetence or confusion, that was the authentic voice of fascism. A knowing wink and nod about the unreality of reality.
Putin’s guiding hand at the moment is not so much fascism as colonialism. Anyone wish to disagree?
That's the kind of thing someone would say if all they really knew about Russia was its recent excursions into Ukraine. If you take a quick survey of the internal Russian political landscape as well, you'll find a lot more than "just" colonialism to worry you.
That’s a fair comment. He (or they) locks up and poisons opposition.
We can though take hope from how quickly East Germany and apartheid South Africa fell and changed?
If it was just about Ukraine, I would be right. The drive there is coloniasm isn’t’ it? Make Russia Great Again is all about a Colonial Russia that should remain in the past?
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
Do you live or work in the constituency? Or are you looking from a distance without local knowledge, local news, local gossip down the pub...
I asked @wooliedyed if he lived in another constituency yesterday. If we keep this up he will get paranoid that we trying to track him down.
I'll make it easy! Im in Norwich South. No, i have no specific Bishop Auckland knowledge, eek, and if anyone has then please do counter me. Im going on the 2019 result, the fact shes a first time incumbant and the slightly less drastic loss of support in parts if brexity red wall the locals hinted at. Shes got an 18% majority. Gossip down the pub is overrated. All constituencies have very varied wards so unless youre drinking in a LOT of pubs it means very little. Local news, sure, but somebody will usually chime in if there is a specific local issue.
Keir needs a reverse dead cat to KEEP Boris in situ.
Suggest the next head of the Serious Crimes Unit should be transgender or something.
There’s a real risk that Keir loses if Boris is ousted.
History suggests they'll go for Priti Truss or Raab. The only possibles who haven't compromised themselves by being over supportive nor overtly disloyal by dumping on him. All of them no-hopers. As is two-times loser Hunt.
The only real danger to Starmer-bright human and articulate-is Rishi but Johnson's screwed him before he got out of the blocks.
Almost anyone is a danger to Starmer. He has completely failed to make any impression as LOTO, he is very fortunate to be facing Johnson. He barely leads a fat discredited dog on its deathbed as best PM.
I think you underestimate him. He's not flamboyant nor particularly articulate. But he seems safe. He's a Volvo and after three years with a rust-bucket Trabant which can't pass it's MOT that what voters will settle for
Starmer is dullness, cubed.
To the power of a Google plex
Which is why we can’t wait for him to be PM. Make Politics Dull Again should be on the t shirts.
Heath v Wilson. How we yearn to have our arse bored off and down our legs, onto the floor, cheekily slipping away stage right.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
Yes that would make sense, especially as demographic changes in those seats favour them in the longer terms.
Yes. The Old Ed Balls seat, Yvettes seat, Ed Milibands seat etc, the slightly more rural NE seats, Sunderland area, NE Lincs are the new battlegrounds whilst former battles are now safe Labour If the Tories get 40% in 2024 I expect Ed and Yvette to be out of parliament
Yep those seats will be lost were the Tories to get 40%+.
I suspect they are going to get little more than the 30-33% they are currently polling and that figure is likely to get way worse as this year continues.
The Tories are in big trouble, if they poll in the low 30s in a general election, even if labour polled 38%, and the tories polled 32% they will lose scores of seats
Keir needs a reverse dead cat to KEEP Boris in situ.
Suggest the next head of the Serious Crimes Unit should be transgender or something.
There’s a real risk that Keir loses if Boris is ousted.
History suggests they'll go for Priti Truss or Raab. The only possibles who haven't compromised themselves by being over supportive nor overtly disloyal by dumping on him. All of them no-hopers. As is two-times loser Hunt.
The only real danger to Starmer-bright human and articulate-is Rishi but Johnson's screwed him before he got out of the blocks.
Almost anyone is a danger to Starmer. He has completely failed to make any impression as LOTO, he is very fortunate to be facing Johnson. He barely leads a fat discredited dog on its deathbed as best PM.
I think you underestimate him. He's not flamboyant nor particularly articulate. But he seems safe. He's a Volvo and after three years with a rust-bucket Trabant which can't pass it's MOT that what voters will settle for
Starmer is dullness, cubed.
Big Bad Dom nails Starmer in that excellent Unherd interview. Starmer is…. Rubbish. Just really poor on multiple levels. Bad communicator, no sense of humour, no fresh thinking, a slave to convention, a bore. But he might just become PM because Boris and the rest of it. The Tories are exhausted
It is an indictment of the state of British politics that someone as smart as Cummings is out of a job whereas so many time servers plod on and on. I accept that he is divisive and Marmitey
He reminds me oddly of Mandelson. Clearly an asset to UK PLC but annoys too many people
So, the increase in tax rates in Scotland have actually brought in about £200m less than before rather than £500m more. Why is this?
The answer, sadly, is more complicated than a Laffer curve I told you so, although that certainly plays a part. The average income in Scotland has not risen as rapidly as the average income in rUK. This may, in part, be because some of the highest paid jobs, especially in financial services, are drifting southwards. But it also reflects an economy that is becoming ever more public sector dominated where words like "profit" are dirty things.
Kate Forbes, fresh from her High School prom, states that the provision of services must be reset (another word for cut) with the priorities being health, social security and helping firms recover. Not sure how much that last one is getting but social security spending is forecast to increase from 10-14% of the budget over the next 4 years. How are firms going to recover when we don't even have a satisfactory railway service? How on earth do we attract foreign investment when people don't even know what currency we will be using in 5 years time? How can we indulge ourselves with Net Zero, another budget priority, when we have oil and gas waiting to be exploited for that nasty profit thing once again in the North Sea.
Justice is going to be cut, despite an unprecedented backlog of trials from Covid. Victims of crime are going to have to wait even longer for trials where the evidence is all the fainter.
And still we have no opposition worthy of the name. It's a sad state of affairs.
All true. As Scottish politics sits within a Unionist vs Nationalist prison which itself is within the ongoing UK Tories vs non Tories battle, the ability to oppose is difficult.
The simple reality is that for the three opposition parties to effectively work together is politically impossible. They manage it at council level where nobody is looking, but nationally Labour can't drop its pretence that its dominance is about to come back, the LibDems need to be heard so want to stand apart, and nobody will work with the Tories because morals.
I don't know how we fix it. Because despite the SNP's genuine non-scum compared to the Tories image, they are a big screw up on a whole heap of policy areas. And keep trying to drag us off down the independence rabbit hole without actually wanting to say what is on the other side.
All the twits on here tossing out the word Fascism like some halfwit 80s lefty student having a microgasm of outrage should take a fortnight’s holiday in Afghanistan under the Taliban
THAT is Fascism, probably the purest example the world can show, as of today
The worship of violence, the worship of the patriarchy, the total refutation of democracy or liberalism, the brutal intolerance of different opinions, the veneration of some mystical power, the adulation and conflation of creed/party/nation, the cruel and relentless misogyny, the perception of outsiders and unbelievers (and women) as inherently inferior, the deliberate sadism as a public policy…
And on, and on.
Trying to lasso @HYUFD or Boris Johnson into the same paddock as the Taliban is laughable. And pitiful. Stop
So, the increase in tax rates in Scotland have actually brought in about £200m less than before rather than £500m more. Why is this?
The answer, sadly, is more complicated than a Laffer curve I told you so, although that certainly plays a part. The average income in Scotland has not risen as rapidly as the average income in rUK. This may, in part, be because some of the highest paid jobs, especially in financial services, are drifting southwards. But it also reflects an economy that is becoming ever more public sector dominated where words like "profit" are dirty things.
Kate Forbes, fresh from her High School prom, states that the provision of services must be reset (another word for cut) with the priorities being health, social security and helping firms recover. Not sure how much that last one is getting but social security spending is forecast to increase from 10-14% of the budget over the next 4 years. How are firms going to recover when we don't even have a satisfactory railway service? How on earth do we attract foreign investment when people don't even know what currency we will be using in 5 years time? How can we indulge ourselves with Net Zero, another budget priority, when we have oil and gas waiting to be exploited for that nasty profit thing once again in the North Sea.
Justice is going to be cut, despite an unprecedented backlog of trials from Covid. Victims of crime are going to have to wait even longer for trials where the evidence is all the fainter.
And still we have no opposition worthy of the name. It's a sad state of affairs.
What's the point of opposition when the excuse used by the SNP will be "we wouldn't have this issue were we Independent (followed by supporter chanting)..
The point is to give the people of Scotland a credible choice to a staggeringly incompetent government which is destroying our prospects. It really shouldn't be that hard.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
Do you live or work in the constituency? Or are you looking from a distance without local knowledge, local news, local gossip down the pub...
I asked @wooliedyed if he lived in another constituency yesterday. If we keep this up he will get paranoid that we trying to track him down.
I'll make it easy! Im in Norwich South. No, i have no specific Bishop Auckland knowledge, eek, and if anyone has then please do counter me. Im going on the 2019 result, the fact shes a first time incumbant and the slightly less drastic loss of support in parts if brexity red wall the locals hinted at. Shes got an 18% majority. Gossip down the pub is overrated. All constituencies have very varied wards so unless youre drinking in a LOT of pubs it means very little. Local news, sure, but somebody will usually chime in if there is a specific local issue.
I’m not in bishop Auckland but I am in a Durham seat and I agree with you. I think the seat has been trending Tory for many years now.
Such a killer paragraph from Mike but will the tories see sense?
'His supporters argue that Johnson’s great strength is that he is seen as an election winner. My response is that his victories over the discredited LAB figures of Livingstone and Corbyn are really no big deal.'
OGH has said that before and he's still wrong. Livingstone is only discredited because Boris beat him. Twice.
A Tory winning Labour London even once - let alone twice - really, really is a big deal. A massive deal. Boris's electoral ceiling even now is still far higher than anyone else on the Tory benches (or SKS). The only thing that has changed is that his electoral floor is much lower too.
Yes, but it is quite self fulfilling. When Johnsons electoral career ends in failure (as all political careers do) is his loss because he is discredited, or is he discredited by the loss?
It will be interesting to see how he does on his book sales and after dinner speaking. As I have said before I just don't get the fees paid to ex-PMs for after dinner speaking. I used to book speakers for conferences and you can get some great ones for a fraction of the price. I can't imagine May being any good, but she pulls in the money. Some have said it is for the contacts.
What I do believe is that Boris will be a brilliant after dinner speaker anyway and will probably earn a future on the book deals even if he is discredited when leaving office.
Surely the appeal of Theresa May as a speaker, and Blair for that matter, lies in offering an insight into the serious business of politics, government and international relations. They are serious people speaking to an audience of serious people who want a glimpse behind the curtain.
Boris is not a serious speaker; he is a clown; he tells jokes; he is an entertaining speaker. Look at how badly he was received at the CBI conference where captains of industry had not paid to be amused by tales of Peppa Pig World.
I should imagine Boris's big cheques will come from journalism — the Telegraph paid him £250,000 a year for a weekly column that probably took about two hours' work; a fee that could easily be doubled, at least — and a return to television. £5 million for his memoirs, even if part of that is spent repaying the advance for his long-delayed Shakespeare book. A couple of moosehead chairs at well-endowed American universities for another couple of million, and pretty soon we are talking about serious money for unserious commitments. If Boris can break into American television, the sky is the limit.
In next CP leads market (BF) Hunt clear favourite at 6.2, Truss 8.2, Tugendat 8.4, Wallace 10.5.
I can't see Hunt getting past the membership - I would sell him.
(Heck it is far from clear that he either stands or makes it past the MPs. Big sell.)
I don't have any personal information, but I'm a constituent and know him a bit. I'm pretty sure he'll stand, and I agree he'd be good medicine for their Blue Wall problem, more so than Wallace or Truss.
Do you think he’d be able to keep the red wall too ?
The Tories best bet iro that is to focus on the bits they are best placed to retain imo - where they took a big lead, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Rother Valley etc, forget Redcar, Leigh etc they are dropping anyway, and look at seats that had a big bxp vote - Hartlepool (obv try and retain from by election) Sunderland etc
By the time the next election comes Brexit will be 4+ years ago. Voters will be expecting to see results and Bishop Auckland / Sedgefield there is no success to talk about...
I disagree. I think the shift was for the thing to be done not for it to achieve an end, as we see with the not particularly drastic movement in brexit polling since. The thing was done. It marks a shift in these areas that will partially 'naturally' hold against national movements (opposite true in remainia of course) Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
Do you live or work in the constituency? Or are you looking from a distance without local knowledge, local news, local gossip down the pub...
I asked @wooliedyed if he lived in another constituency yesterday. If we keep this up he will get paranoid that we trying to track him down.
I'll make it easy! Im in Norwich South. No, i have no specific Bishop Auckland knowledge, eek, and if anyone has then please do counter me. Im going on the 2019 result, the fact shes a first time incumbant and the slightly less drastic loss of support in parts if brexity red wall the locals hinted at. Shes got an 18% majority. Gossip down the pub is overrated. All constituencies have very varied wards so unless youre drinking in a LOT of pubs it means very little. Local news, sure, but somebody will usually chime in if there is a specific local issue.
Spoil sport. Now where exactly in Norwich South?
I found your stuff the other day on Mole Valley very interesting.
Last week it was in two places that made it certain Boris time is up. Grant Shapps face. And PB.
My reading of PB is it has crossed a sort of Rubicon – the opposition parties, Libdems, Labour, more than happy for this status quo of Boris still there and hope it will go on now all the way up to the general election. It’s the Tory posters I sense leaning towards the idea of turning a page on Boris and his government and having to defend the indefensible on the doorstep and everywhere, and getting a fresh start to rally around instead. By all means correct me if I have this wrong.
The idea Boris remains popular and becomes more popular after he is out is laughable, his time as PM wont be remembered well as time passes.
His spell has been more shit than Gordon Brown. It doesn’t deserve to be longer!
It'll be interesting to see how the Tories behave post-Boris (should he be ousted). I can easily see a split, a kind of GoP/Trump scenario with the pragmatists moving on with the new leader, whilst the Borisites bewail a terrible injustice and try desperately to keep the Boris flame alive. (Five years ago I'd have thought the latter scenario crazy, but now I'm far from sure.)
Sorry Mr G, highly unlikely in my opinion. I think Boris will fight until the end; an end which will include him fighting on in Parliament as long as he can do.
Comments
x
We don’t need to abuse the word fascism for him, in my opinion.
Notably he lacks the willingness to use or encourage extra-military support. Some US Republicans are much closer along the dial.
A Tory winning Labour London even once - let alone twice - really, really is a big deal. A massive deal. Boris's electoral ceiling even now is still far higher than anyone else on the Tory benches (or SKS). The only thing that has changed is that his electoral floor is much lower too.
Edit - and true to form, some tosser off-topics it!
There was quite a bit of disaffection with Ken, but it was kind of latent and dispersed. Previous Tory candidates had got absolutely nowhere.
Boris campaigned well and managed to get grumpy suburbanites in Zone 4 and 5 to come out and outnumber demoralised Livingstoners.
It had a lot more to do with Jeremy Corbyn. Whilst the LibDem vote share remained the same, the Labour vote fell 6% and that was sufficient to see Colburn cross the line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carshalton_and_Wallington_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
The reason that Mhairi Black called this out - and I believe she is right - is because its a slippery slope. Will we end up like a British Third Reich - no don't be silly. But HY makes statements that fit absolutely with the *political* elements of fascist authoritarianism.
Loads of us use throwaway comments we then forget or change./ Not HY. He is absolutely serious when he says that Scot Nats can be ignored. And Labour voters. Or non-Johnsonite Tories. Democracy in his tendency's eyes is there to serve and enrich only its supporters. Everyone else and anything that enables them is an enemy to be crushed. "Crush the saboteurs". "Enemies of the People". "Leftie Lawyers". "Woke". All the other. All must be stopped. And with them the rule of law, freedom of speech etc etc.
I don't want to silence the guy - it is interesting when we stop laughing and realise he's serious. Its all the more reason why Johnson and the lot of them need to follow Corbyn into the political dustbin.
If the Tories get 40% in 2024 I expect Ed and Yvette to be out of parliament
Q. What do Livingstone and Corbyn have in common?
A. They're both pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, anti-Semites ... as well as various other nasty character traits and extreme left-wing views.
A centrist, affable, tory was always going to be a vote winner until people realised that he too was a schmuck. Most of my London friends think Johnson was a disastrously bad mayor.
But in 2024/5 that seat probably,goes labour.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/31/ftse-100-markets-live-news-russia-oil-prices-pound/
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/05/31/uk-housing-market-slump-feared-as-mortgage-lending-plunges-by-a-third/
Fascism lives (whether jackbooted or not) in various Latin American countries and on the edges of the US Republican Party. Maybe too with Orban, I’m not an expert.
I think the dial probably goes populist > authoritarian > fascist.
Boris is a populist, and is engaged in a few authoritarian measures to reduce accountability.
Why? Because of all the reasons talked about - a protest vote, sick of being ignored, no jobs or money or prospects, public services crap, having a hard time but hear about the other getting more and thats unfair.
Brexit has to be seen to be resolving these genuine issues and even the baseless gripes or it has failed. And it isn't doing so. And there is no prospect of doing so. Which means the good people of Sedgefield etc are back to either voting on the tried and tested issues or not voting at all. Tories can't use "we delivered Brexit" when "Brexit" hasn't delivered the promise of BREXIT.
Just the grossly offensive, provocative, and ahistorical analogy.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/01/jeremy-hunt-draws-eu-ire-over-soviet-prison-comparison
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/feb/12/pressandpublishing.londonpolitics
I’m on the dial. I’m a liberal who believes, for example, that Scottish independence is not *merely* a matter for Scottish voters, which puts me on some kind of continuum with HYUFD, even.
Invocations of fascism usually just serve to weaken the underlying argument. Mhairi’s speech was v good but overwrought, frankly.
Cummings says, of Boris:-
But remember, he doesn’t really want to be there very long. All he wants to do is not be a loser and not be put out in disgrace. He’s not actually interested in the job. Even in January 2020, he was saying to me, “God, you know these people who say they want to do this job and go on and on? Well I want to write my Shakespeare book.”
The election was on 12 December. By mid-January he was whinging about what a difficult job it is. I said: “You are Prime Minister and if you want to sit upstairs in the morning and do a bit of writing, that’s up to you, but I wouldn’t run around the building telling everyone that you are finding the job boring. Otherwise, you might find it hard to get people to do what you want”.
https://unherd.com/2022/05/dominic-cummings-i-dont-like-parties/
OK it is interesting in that it fits with my own suspicion that Boris has long intended to retire before the next election. Others remind us that Boris will soon overtake Theresa May and Gordon Brown's terms. He might also have in mind Harold Wilson's surprise, although long-planned, resignation at 60; Boris will be 60 in June 2024, though I'm not sure his heart is in it for another two years. Whenever it is, Boris will want to go out as a winner, and on his own terms, not forced out by vonc.
Dehenna in Bishop Auckland for example has a massive majority and first time incumbancy. In all but a meltdown i have her safe
Or if you prefer the mods directly:
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3653881#Comment_3653881
https://twitter.com/BBCRichardMoss/status/1531557149490532352?t=f4HYk0pL7NrbYgcXRX9DOg&s=19
New regional GDP data from @ONS shows the North East was the worst-performing UK economic region in the third quarter of 2021. Its economy shrank 1.2% on the previous quarter - the worst fall in the UK - while overall the economy was growing: https://t.co/bqFETzBA4N
The @ONS says the North East saw a fall in the manufacturing sector of 7.9% on previous quarter. The English region that grew the most overall in the quarter was London (2.3%). North West (1.2%) and South West (0.6%) were the others who grew. Yorkshire economy was flat.
This is a quarter that pre-dates the cost of living crisis, the substantial rise in energy bills, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Covid regulations that were still in place were largely pretty light.
THAT is Fascism, probably the purest example the world can show, as of today
The worship of violence, the worship of the patriarchy, the total refutation of democracy or liberalism, the brutal intolerance of different opinions, the veneration of some mystical power, the adulation and conflation of creed/party/nation, the cruel and relentless misogyny, the perception of outsiders and unbelievers (and women) as inherently inferior, the deliberate sadism as a public policy…
And on, and on.
Trying to lasso @HYUFD or Boris Johnson into the same paddock as the Taliban is laughable. And pitiful. Stop
It’s still only 58, just different ways of cutting the lab, Lib green from the 58
“I’m always busy…”
@SirGrahamBrady is the only man in or out of Westminster who knows exactly how many no confidence letters have gone in on the PM’s leadership. Smiling, and staying quiet for now:
https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1531655679911636993/video/1
This is because what exports they do produce skew heavily towards the EU whereas London is more globally orientated.
From memory, the North East was tipped to do the very worst.
They need to suck it up, I’m afraid. They voted for it. They also voted for a liar who was obviously not going to deliver “levelling up” in any form.
Note that this is a rule of thumb, and fascism is a twisty, slippery little bastard. Not all of Eco's points ought to be treated as equal in weight. You have to use a little human judgement in there. But just because defining and naming fascism is difficult, doesn't mean we should't try. There is such a thing, and it deserves a name.
The mistake made by people who are averse to its use is this: fascism is less of a monolithic ideology than you suspect. It's very postmodern, and its slipperiness is intrinsic to its nature. It's chameleon nature doesn't mean it's not real (after all, chameleons are real!) Pay attention in particular to Eco's 14th point: Newspeak. Part of fascism is the butchery of truth and that extends to its own being. Fascists are often wholly unconcerned with logical contradiction, because logical consistency is anathema to a cult, and undermines decisive action by asking first what actions are justified in the context of reality.
For these reasons, fascism is less about a singular ideological stronghold and more about a network of unreasonableness that together forms a web of evil. You can't easily define something whose very existence fights against the concept of definition.
What I do believe is that Boris will be a brilliant after dinner speaker anyway and will probably earn a future on the book deals even if he is discredited when leaving office.
The nearest thing Boris Premiership is comparable to is the Reign of Emperor Nero.
Yes Russia is fascist now, or close to it.
The sufficient criteria - whatever Eco says - is the use and worship of violence, esp. extra-judicial violence, to achieve political objectives.
Some people will just revert back to their previous voting habit, but others won't.
I suspect they are going to get little more than the 30-33% they are currently polling and that figure is likely to get way worse as this year continues.
Given the vast majority of seats and votes in 2019 went labours way your ignorance is showing.
There's a growing "wind of change" within the Tory party as the letters pile up
A vote of no confidence in prime minister "feels inevitable," says a 2019er
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/downing-street-launches-save-boris-campaign-as-letters-pile-up
The swing against the Tories will be less in the likes of Rother, Normanton, Bishop Auckland etc than in leafy remainia.
Obviously the extent of national overall swing will determine what that means locally.
If its 10% national swing then sure, the red wall gains probably all go as part of 150 losses
The Comres is 27-29 fully after the money splurge which Nick claimed reduced the Lab lead to 2. Tories 31 lead ELEVEN Nick.
MoonRabbit poll predictor queen. 😝
The answer, sadly, is more complicated than a Laffer curve I told you so, although that certainly plays a part. The average income in Scotland has not risen as rapidly as the average income in rUK. This may, in part, be because some of the highest paid jobs, especially in financial services, are drifting southwards. But it also reflects an economy that is becoming ever more public sector dominated where words like "profit" are dirty things.
Kate Forbes, fresh from her High School prom, states that the provision of services must be reset (another word for cut) with the priorities being health, social security and helping firms recover. Not sure how much that last one is getting but social security spending is forecast to increase from 10-14% of the budget over the next 4 years. How are firms going to recover when we don't even have a satisfactory railway service? How on earth do we attract foreign investment when people don't even know what currency we will be using in 5 years time? How can we indulge ourselves with Net Zero, another budget priority, when we have oil and gas waiting to be exploited for that nasty profit thing once again in the North Sea.
Justice is going to be cut, despite an unprecedented backlog of trials from Covid. Victims of crime are going to have to wait even longer for trials where the evidence is all the fainter.
And still we have no opposition worthy of the name. It's a sad state of affairs.
Will be interesting to see the impact if that crutch for the housing market is removed.
I believe she threw the "f-word" into her speech deliberately to get it talked about and it worked going off how many times it has been viewed. Its certainly overblown. But highlights some painful realities that too many people - your good self included - are happy to accept because you are the beneficiary of the othering and of the dismantling of our democratic institutions.
Remember that most of the students who throw "fascist" and "communist" about are usually advocates of the opposing extreme. I'm not. I'm a democrat, and the idea that we just sit back whilst we allow a government to start the dismantling of the rule of law and freedom of speech and assembly is not something I accept.
https://twitter.com/gavinbarwell/status/1531607135536271361?s=21&t=wYVT92C2kiyZsk6KqRfVIA
My reading of PB is it has crossed a sort of Rubicon – the opposition parties, Libdems, Labour, more than happy for this status quo of Boris still there and hope it will go on now all the way up to the general election. It’s the Tory posters I sense leaning towards the idea of turning a page on Boris and his government and having to defend the indefensible on the doorstep and everywhere, and getting a fresh start to rally around instead. By all means correct me if I have this wrong.
The idea Boris remains popular and becomes more popular after he is out is laughable, his time as PM wont be remembered well as time passes.
His spell has been more shit than Gordon Brown. It doesn’t deserve to be longer!
Speaking of those colonists, it’s appears they did unspeakably nasty things to the Indians, and were slave-owners besides. Difficult to judge how emancipatory they really were, these days.
We’ve just had Memorial Day, flag-shaggers would LOVE it.
Once a habit is broken......
That's how all sorts of anti schemes work.
What's this one called?
We can though take hope from how quickly East Germany and apartheid South Africa fell and changed?
If it was just about Ukraine, I would be right. The drive there is coloniasm isn’t’ it? Make Russia Great Again is all about a Colonial Russia that should remain in the past?
No, i have no specific Bishop Auckland knowledge, eek, and if anyone has then please do counter me. Im going on the 2019 result, the fact shes a first time incumbant and the slightly less drastic loss of support in parts if brexity red wall the locals hinted at. Shes got an 18% majority.
Gossip down the pub is overrated. All constituencies have very varied wards so unless youre drinking in a LOT of pubs it means very little. Local news, sure, but somebody will usually chime in if there is a specific local issue.
Which is why we can’t wait for him to be PM. Make Politics Dull Again should be on the t shirts.
Heath v Wilson. How we yearn to have our arse bored off and down our legs, onto the floor, cheekily slipping away stage right.
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1531657504530235393?s=21&t=wYVT92C2kiyZsk6KqRfVIA
It is an indictment of the state of British politics that someone as smart as Cummings is out of a job whereas so many time servers plod on and on. I accept that he is divisive and Marmitey
He reminds me oddly of Mandelson. Clearly an asset to UK PLC but annoys too many people
The simple reality is that for the three opposition parties to effectively work together is politically impossible. They manage it at council level where nobody is looking, but nationally Labour can't drop its pretence that its dominance is about to come back, the LibDems need to be heard so want to stand apart, and nobody will work with the Tories because morals.
I don't know how we fix it. Because despite the SNP's genuine non-scum compared to the Tories image, they are a big screw up on a whole heap of policy areas. And keep trying to drag us off down the independence rabbit hole without actually wanting to say what is on the other side.
Boris is not a serious speaker; he is a clown; he tells jokes; he is an entertaining speaker. Look at how badly he was received at the CBI conference where captains of industry had not paid to be amused by tales of Peppa Pig World.
I should imagine Boris's big cheques will come from journalism — the Telegraph paid him £250,000 a year for a weekly column that probably took about two hours' work; a fee that could easily be doubled, at least — and a return to television. £5 million for his memoirs, even if part of that is spent repaying the advance for his long-delayed Shakespeare book. A couple of moosehead chairs at well-endowed American universities for another couple of million, and pretty soon we are talking about serious money for unserious commitments. If Boris can break into American television, the sky is the limit.
I found your stuff the other day on Mole Valley very interesting.