Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
I can tell you that the buses here often are standing room only in the busiest times. And often pretty full at other times of day. Plus the service has to continue, or else youd moan even more. .
Ofd course, if you refuse to use them anyway then you won't be riding in them.
I don't use them because they are expensive , slow and unreliable. I don't have a car so mostly use public transport ie trainsor taxi's. I would not even consider us as an option as its too slow too expensive and too unreliable
I don't have a car. Unfortunately, here, we don't have trains either. Well we do. The line goes slap through the middle of town. But there are no stations. So fat lot of use they are.
I don't have a car either and use mostly trains and yes we have a station.
The difference to me is using a bus I have to tailor my life and my work hours around the bus. I don't need to nearly to the same extent with a train and certainly don't need to with a car.
Before covid our office moved and they said to all of us that got there by trains ( the old one was 5 minutes walk from the train station) oh dont worry there is a bus from the station that way (about 2 miles away) 90% of the train users didn't even bother with the bus and immediately got fold up bikes, electric scooters etc. Anything but rely on the bus.
Well. You see. You've hit on the nub of the issue. There aren't buses at the times folk want to use them. Or even need. This comes back to a point I labour. No one in this country ever starts with an issue from first principles. What is the purpose of a bus service? This applies to your DBS complaints too. What are they for? We just seem to hate such "philosophical" questions. So tinker at the edges.
The issue of buses at the times some people need them will only get worse with the service cuts.
For some people in some of the villages in north Durham reliant on buses to get to work they are losing their early morning services. It’s crazy.
I presume you are affected in your part of Northumberland ?
Fortunately. We aren't served by Go Northeast, so no. Not as yet. However. You can get a bus into toon from 5:05 in the morning to hold down a job. Unless you work Sundays. The first doesn't get in till 9:55. As I said. No one considers what they are actually for.
No bus at all on a Sunday for me.
You must live in rural Leicestershire then? I can’t believe a city of 300,000 has no Sunday bus service?
I live 6 miles from the centre of the city. There are buses at night that will take me 4 of those miles, then there is a long walk.
I remember seeing a Tory transport minister being interviewed on TV after bus privatisation. Proudly explaining that he'd seen three empty buses go over the bridge outside Westminster and thought 'Something Must Be Done'.
And the result was to privatise the buses everywhere except the area around the bridge by Westminster.
The whole UK needs a bus service like London has. Labour policy should be that, that is levelling up
Yet it's Manchester with the busiest road served by buses.
Manchester is 'not the whole UK', just saying.
But it's oop north, just sayin'.
A pedant writes: Manchester is not 'oop' north, it is 'up' north. No-one in the north or anywhere else pronounces 'up' to rhyme with 'coop' or 'loop' or 'hoop' or any other word ending in oop. What it is not is 'ap' north.
On buses, Manchester does indeed have the busiest bus corridor in Europe, which is excellent if you cannot wait more than 60 second for a bus and are prepared to pay any price to ride the first bus that comes, but isn't great if you want an affordable overall bus service. Manchester's buses are, contrary to popular belief here, actually quite affordable, but only in the narrow situation that you get the same bus five days a week. Weekly tickets are actually quite cheap. So bus deregulation hasn't been an unmitigated disaster. Buses also became considerably cleaner and more pleasant to ride on deregulation. But it you want to make one-off journeys they are very expensive, and that's also a result of deregulation. Franchising is not a panacea, because deregulation was not all bad. But on balance, I believe franchising will give GM a much better public transport offer.
One of the economic advantages the UK has is that it is densely populated.
It was an advantage when transportation was difficult and expensive, centuries ago.
It is a big disadvantage now as it is a main reason why we have too many NIMBYs, poor infrastructure, a stunted construction sector and ruinously high house prices.
4/4 The world should not wonder how putin might exit the war. putin has his own propaganda army that can explain anything. The world must unite around #Ukraine and speed up supplies of heavy weapons to protect global order and democratic values.
Macron is a total fucking cock. if Putin rules the world, EM would be his b1tch.
There is a special place in purgatory for people like Macron.
Isn't this just politicking? The French are fairly pro-Russian if I recall correctly.
How can you be pro-Putin? Would you in the 30s have been condoning my supporting Hitler by saying “well, the XXX are fairly pro-German if i recall correctly”?
recognise evil for what it is and stop making excuses for apologists.
Says someone who is in love with Trump. Both nasty pieces of work.
One of the economic advantages the UK has is that it is densely populated.
It was an advantage when transportation was difficult and expensive, centuries ago.
It is a big disadvantage now as it is a main reason why we have too many NIMBYs, poor infrastructure, a stunted construction sector and ruinously high house prices.
Why then has the Netherlands (pop density 508 per km2) got such good infrastructure compare to England (pop density 276 per km2)?
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
So, you've posted me an article showing me the history of the US intervening in regime change over the last 200 years and that's supposed to be evidence of an American empire we live under today, is it?
We (and they) both were interested in regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya in just the last 10 years - and, although unofficial, we're both very interested in regime change away from Putin in Russia today.
That's not "empire". It's foreign policy.
Posted in response to "what China is doing", which I took to mean its sour-faced meddling and leveraged of finance and infrastructure to exert control over other countries. My response was intended as a rebuke to anyone who thinks America is innocent of similar.
If you mean something different, then spit it out.
My view on imperialism is that the concept doesn't just wink into being past some magical red line; it's a continuum. America has done a lot on that spectrum, from outright colonisation and extermination, through to benign and charitable interventions to help allies. And literally everything in between. America has an imperial history, such a fact cannot reasonably be disputed. And I think it's totally fair to say we still live in an American world. It is a hegemonic power you don't want to be on the wrong side of. Would I call it "imperium"? No. But such descriptions don't fall away as obvious nonsense either.
I don't accept that caricature but even if I did I'd take American control of finances and infrastructure over Chinese any day of the week, thank you.
America doesn't threaten to grind you up and crush your bones, and then proceed to do exactly that.
I mean..
The US Department of Defense charged eleven soldiers over those abuses, and they were court-martialled, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonourably discharged.
China is committing genocide against the Uighurs as a matter of state policy.
They are not remotely comparable.
Well, they are to @Farooq, which might suggest something….
Indeed. It's fascinating that he started off on Thursday with a firm "Republic. Now." and then moved through rampant europhilia over the weekend and onto classic anti-Western tropes and whatabboutery this evening."
It's almost as if treason comes as a package, isn't it?
"Classic anti-Western tropes"? Yeah, you can go fuck yourself. If you want to bury your head in the sand about American "imperialism" (again not the word I prefer to use but bollocks to nuance at this stage, shit for brains, you don't listen anyway), then that's your business. But you ought to realise that it makes you look pretty naive. There is an exploitative element to American power, and its government has been involved in torture and civilian murder. You have to look this fact square in the face, because it's wholly undeniable.
I guess what's upsetting you is that I'm not condemning China enough. But that goes without saying between the two of us. We agree. China is a shitbag government engaged in genocide right now as we speak. I'm not sure what good it does to labour the point because I'm preaching to the converted with you. But your error -- and it is an error -- is that you think America is wholly innocent. It isn't.
Lastly, your problem is the same one that George W Bush had. You seem to think "you're either with us or against us". Well, no. I'm at perfect liberty to criticise America in stark terms for its crimes without it being a wholesale rejection of the entire country. Until you approach that fact, even just glimpse it through the trees and realise that it's there, you'll be forever lost and frankly baffled. You aren't very clever, but I think even you are capable of that. Now I'm done with you, you can go back to fucking off.
One of the economic advantages the UK has is that it is densely populated.
It was an advantage when transportation was difficult and expensive, centuries ago.
It is a big disadvantage now as it is a main reason why we have too many NIMBYs, poor infrastructure, a stunted construction sector and ruinously high house prices.
Why then has the Netherlands (pop density 508 per km2) got such good infrastructure compare to England (pop density 276 per km2)?
I imagine it’s because the Dutch pay no attention to people like @Fishing.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
So, you've posted me an article showing me the history of the US intervening in regime change over the last 200 years and that's supposed to be evidence of an American empire we live under today, is it?
We (and they) both were interested in regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya in just the last 10 years - and, although unofficial, we're both very interested in regime change away from Putin in Russia today.
That's not "empire". It's foreign policy.
Posted in response to "what China is doing", which I took to mean its sour-faced meddling and leveraged of finance and infrastructure to exert control over other countries. My response was intended as a rebuke to anyone who thinks America is innocent of similar.
If you mean something different, then spit it out.
My view on imperialism is that the concept doesn't just wink into being past some magical red line; it's a continuum. America has done a lot on that spectrum, from outright colonisation and extermination, through to benign and charitable interventions to help allies. And literally everything in between. America has an imperial history, such a fact cannot reasonably be disputed. And I think it's totally fair to say we still live in an American world. It is a hegemonic power you don't want to be on the wrong side of. Would I call it "imperium"? No. But such descriptions don't fall away as obvious nonsense either.
I don't accept that caricature but even if I did I'd take American control of finances and infrastructure over Chinese any day of the week, thank you.
America doesn't threaten to grind you up and crush your bones, and then proceed to do exactly that.
I mean..
The US Department of Defense charged eleven soldiers over those abuses, and they were court-martialled, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonourably discharged.
China is committing genocide against the Uighurs as a matter of state policy.
They are not remotely comparable.
Well, they are to @Farooq, which might suggest something….
Indeed. It's fascinating that he started off on Thursday with a firm "Republic. Now." and then moved through rampant europhilia over the weekend and onto classic anti-Western tropes and whatabboutery this evening."
It's almost as if treason comes as a package, isn't it?
Pointing out crimes committed by a foreign country is not treason. We are not the USA, however much the weaker-minded amongst us would wish us to be.
One of the economic advantages the UK has is that it is densely populated.
It was an advantage when transportation was difficult and expensive, centuries ago.
It is a big disadvantage now as it is a main reason why we have too many NIMBYs, poor infrastructure, a stunted construction sector and ruinously high house prices.
Why then has the Netherlands (pop density 508 per km2) got such good infrastructure compare to England (pop density 276 per km2)?
Because the Dutch are better at telling NIMBYs to f--k themselves than we are. I didn't say that high population density was the only reason that we have so many NIMBYs, only that it a main reason.
Joe Armitage @joe_armitage · 8m The Tory rebels have either: 1) deliberately attempted to use the Conservative HQ document format for their dossier (see example below) OR 2) somebody in Conservative HQ has gone rogue and is conducting the research and writing it for them.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
You should get out more. My bus is often full by the time it gets to the City Centre. It is empty when it sets off, and in an intermediate state along the way. How full it is depends on where you observe it on the route.
The problem for me using it is that there is only one per hour, and the last one from the city is at 1830, if I miss that, then there is another service part of the way, then I have a 2 mile walk. Incidentally my Trust runs a bus between the three hospital sites, about 2-3 miles apart, open to any passenger, but free with Staff ID. It is nearly always full.
Again you live in leicester its quite a big place. I havent said buses dont work there. I just don't think they work in small places of 150k or less. Ie most towns in the country. People keep telling me to travel more as there bus is full but they always come from huge places. Think its them needs to travel more. Even you have said last one is at 18:30....well good bye to going out for a meal with your work colleagues then if you want to get a bus....inconvenient as I said
Bedford is 65k people and had a pretty decent bus service when I was there. That said... It worked as biddenham and bromham, but the outer villages will have been a lot more patchy.
The right to leave / wrong to leave figures (37/49) in the latest YouGov are the widest spread we’ve seen yet, I think.
Wrong to leave still just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
Wrong, wrong, wrong and you know it.
You'd do better to argue that 37% is just 0.5% lower than the 37.5% who voted Leave in 2016.
In fact, 49% is 15% more than the 34% who voted Remain in 2016.
Either include don't knows/abstentions or don't. Don't mix it up.
I did include don't knows, with them still less than 50% of the UK electorate think Brexit was wrong
You included don't knows in one figure, and excluded them from the comparator. You are so dishonest. Nobody does that day in day out without it being deliberate.
The right to leave / wrong to leave figures (37/49) in the latest YouGov are the widest spread we’ve seen yet, I think.
Wrong to leave still just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
Wrong, wrong, wrong and you know it.
You'd do better to argue that 37% is just 0.5% lower than the 37.5% who voted Leave in 2016.
In fact, 49% is 15% more than the 34% who voted Remain in 2016.
Either include don't knows/abstentions or don't. Don't mix it up.
I did include don't knows, with them still less than 50% of the UK electorate think Brexit was wrong
Here's the thing though.
51% wrong, even if it were sustained, wouldn't be enough to reverse the UK's current Euro policy. But (silly example incoming), if the polling got to 80% wrong, it would be in the interests of someone to run on a policy of making up with Europe, pretty much whatever the cost. They would run on it, probably win on it and enact it.
So- where's the transition? Or more accutately, where are the transitions? What degree of opposition to the current policy makes it worth Labour moving further than "Make Brexit Work (because this one doesn't)"? When does defending this Brexit stop being in the Conservatives' interests?
My guess- the drift will be 1 or 2 percent a year, and mostly not due to people changing their minds. (Almsot nobody is changing their minds on this.) So barring events (which could go either way), it will take until around the end of the decade for the right:wrong score to hit 60:30. And that's when the politics starts to awake from its slumber.
The right to leave / wrong to leave figures (37/49) in the latest YouGov are the widest spread we’ve seen yet, I think.
Wrong to leave still just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
Wrong, wrong, wrong and you know it.
You'd do better to argue that 37% is just 0.5% lower than the 37.5% who voted Leave in 2016.
In fact, 49% is 15% more than the 34% who voted Remain in 2016.
Either include don't knows/abstentions or don't. Don't mix it up.
I did include don't knows, with them still less than 50% of the UK electorate think Brexit was wrong
Here's the thing though.
51% wrong, even if it were sustained, wouldn't be enough to reverse the UK's current Euro policy. But (silly example incoming), if the polling got to 80% wrong, it would be in the interests of someone to run on a policy of making up with Europe, pretty much whatever the cost. They would run on it, probably win on it and enact it.
So- where's the transition? Or more accutately, where are the transitions? What degree of opposition to the current policy makes it worth Labour moving further than "Make Brexit Work (because this one doesn't)"? When does defending this Brexit stop being in the Conservatives' interests?
My guess- the drift will be 1 or 2 percent a year, and mostly not due to people changing their minds. (Almsot nobody is changing their minds on this.) So barring events (which could go either way), it will take until around the end of the decade for the right:wrong score to hit 60:30. And that's when the politics starts to awake from its slumber.
It won't ever get that high as rejoin now means with the Euro, Schengen and everything. Plenty of 2016 Remain voters, including me, would have voted Leave if that was the requirement of continued membership. At most longer term we will rejoin EFTA not the full EU
One of the economic advantages the UK has is that it is densely populated.
It was an advantage when transportation was difficult and expensive, centuries ago.
It is a big disadvantage now as it is a main reason why we have too many NIMBYs, poor infrastructure, a stunted construction sector and ruinously high house prices.
Why then has the Netherlands (pop density 508 per km2) got such good infrastructure compare to England (pop density 276 per km2)?
That doesn't look right. I think you've used a UK figure for England population density: I think England is twice that (and I think your figure for Netherlands is too high) - Wikipedia gives figures for England and the Netherlands as 432 and 423 respectively. Not that your point is wrong, but, you know, details...
The right to leave / wrong to leave figures (37/49) in the latest YouGov are the widest spread we’ve seen yet, I think.
Wrong to leave still just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
Wrong, wrong, wrong and you know it.
You'd do better to argue that 37% is just 0.5% lower than the 37.5% who voted Leave in 2016.
In fact, 49% is 15% more than the 34% who voted Remain in 2016.
Either include don't knows/abstentions or don't. Don't mix it up.
I did include don't knows, with them still less than 50% of the UK electorate think Brexit was wrong
Here's the thing though.
51% wrong, even if it were sustained, wouldn't be enough to reverse the UK's current Euro policy. But (silly example incoming), if the polling got to 80% wrong, it would be in the interests of someone to run on a policy of making up with Europe, pretty much whatever the cost. They would run on it, probably win on it and enact it.
So- where's the transition? Or more accutately, where are the transitions? What degree of opposition to the current policy makes it worth Labour moving further than "Make Brexit Work (because this one doesn't)"? When does defending this Brexit stop being in the Conservatives' interests?
My guess- the drift will be 1 or 2 percent a year, and mostly not due to people changing their minds. (Almsot nobody is changing their minds on this.) So barring events (which could go either way), it will take until around the end of the decade for the right:wrong score to hit 60:30. And that's when the politics starts to awake from its slumber.
It won't ever get that high as rejoin now means with the Euro, Schengen and everything. Plenty of 2016 Remain voters, including me, would have voted Leave if that was the requirement of continued membership. At most longer term we will rejoin EFTA not the full EU
OK then, how far beyond 50 Wrong :40 Right do the polls have to get for that to be on the agenda of an ambitious political party?
The right to leave / wrong to leave figures (37/49) in the latest YouGov are the widest spread we’ve seen yet, I think.
Wrong to leave still just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
Wrong, wrong, wrong and you know it.
You'd do better to argue that 37% is just 0.5% lower than the 37.5% who voted Leave in 2016.
In fact, 49% is 15% more than the 34% who voted Remain in 2016.
Either include don't knows/abstentions or don't. Don't mix it up.
I did include don't knows, with them still less than 50% of the UK electorate think Brexit was wrong
Here's the thing though.
51% wrong, even if it were sustained, wouldn't be enough to reverse the UK's current Euro policy. But (silly example incoming), if the polling got to 80% wrong, it would be in the interests of someone to run on a policy of making up with Europe, pretty much whatever the cost. They would run on it, probably win on it and enact it.
So- where's the transition? Or more accutately, where are the transitions? What degree of opposition to the current policy makes it worth Labour moving further than "Make Brexit Work (because this one doesn't)"? When does defending this Brexit stop being in the Conservatives' interests?
My guess- the drift will be 1 or 2 percent a year, and mostly not due to people changing their minds. (Almsot nobody is changing their minds on this.) So barring events (which could go either way), it will take until around the end of the decade for the right:wrong score to hit 60:30. And that's when the politics starts to awake from its slumber.
It won't ever get that high as rejoin now means with the Euro, Schengen and everything. Plenty of 2016 Remain voters, including me, would have voted Leave if that was the requirement of continued membership. At most longer term we will rejoin EFTA not the full EU
OK then, how far beyond 50 Wrong :40 Right do the polls have to get for that to be on the agenda of an ambitious political party?
As a bonus, Guy Verhofstadt would even come over and campaign for them.
Comments
And the result was to privatise the buses everywhere except the area around the bridge by Westminster.
You'd do better to argue that 37% is just 0.5% lower than the 37.5% who voted Leave in 2016.
In fact, 49% is 15% more than the 34% who voted Remain in 2016.
Either include don't knows/abstentions or don't. Don't mix it up.
What it is not is 'ap' north.
On buses, Manchester does indeed have the busiest bus corridor in Europe, which is excellent if you cannot wait more than 60 second for a bus and are prepared to pay any price to ride the first bus that comes, but isn't great if you want an affordable overall bus service. Manchester's buses are, contrary to popular belief here, actually quite affordable, but only in the narrow situation that you get the same bus five days a week. Weekly tickets are actually quite cheap. So bus deregulation hasn't been an unmitigated disaster. Buses also became considerably cleaner and more pleasant to ride on deregulation. But it you want to make one-off journeys they are very expensive, and that's also a result of deregulation.
Franchising is not a panacea, because deregulation was not all bad. But on balance, I believe franchising will give GM a much better public transport offer.
It is a big disadvantage now as it is a main reason why we have too many NIMBYs, poor infrastructure, a stunted construction sector and ruinously high house prices.
If you want to bury your head in the sand about American "imperialism" (again not the word I prefer to use but bollocks to nuance at this stage, shit for brains, you don't listen anyway), then that's your business. But you ought to realise that it makes you look pretty naive.
There is an exploitative element to American power, and its government has been involved in torture and civilian murder. You have to look this fact square in the face, because it's wholly undeniable.
I guess what's upsetting you is that I'm not condemning China enough. But that goes without saying between the two of us. We agree. China is a shitbag government engaged in genocide right now as we speak. I'm not sure what good it does to labour the point because I'm preaching to the converted with you. But your error -- and it is an error -- is that you think America is wholly innocent. It isn't.
Lastly, your problem is the same one that George W Bush had. You seem to think "you're either with us or against us". Well, no. I'm at perfect liberty to criticise America in stark terms for its crimes without it being a wholesale rejection of the entire country. Until you approach that fact, even just glimpse it through the trees and realise that it's there, you'll be forever lost and frankly baffled. You aren't very clever, but I think even you are capable of that. Now I'm done with you, you can go back to fucking off.
Joe Armitage
@joe_armitage
·
8m
The Tory rebels have either: 1) deliberately attempted to use the Conservative HQ document format for their dossier (see example below) OR 2) somebody in Conservative HQ has gone rogue and is conducting the research and writing it for them.
https://twitter.com/joe_armitage/status/1533571955827302400
You are so dishonest. Nobody does that day in day out without it being deliberate.
New thread
51% wrong, even if it were sustained, wouldn't be enough to reverse the UK's current Euro policy. But (silly example incoming), if the polling got to 80% wrong, it would be in the interests of someone to run on a policy of making up with Europe, pretty much whatever the cost. They would run on it, probably win on it and enact it.
So- where's the transition? Or more accutately, where are the transitions? What degree of opposition to the current policy makes it worth Labour moving further than "Make Brexit Work (because this one doesn't)"? When does defending this Brexit stop being in the Conservatives' interests?
My guess- the drift will be 1 or 2 percent a year, and mostly not due to people changing their minds. (Almsot nobody is changing their minds on this.) So barring events (which could go either way), it will take until around the end of the decade for the right:wrong score to hit 60:30. And that's when the politics starts to awake from its slumber.
Not that your point is wrong, but, you know, details...