I think we’ll possibly join EFTA or something like it but I think that will be it
That needs the brave politician to nail Farage and co's manipulation on immigration, though. Who could that be ?
Right now? Who knows. But there will be politicians going forward who can make the case for EFTA/EEA should they choose.
Irrespective of that particular issue, the idea that we will never again have a PM who is clear minded and confident enough to take the country along in the way Thatcher or Blair did is sad, and I hope overly pessimistic. I would hope that Johnson is the extreme exception rather than the rule.
The thing with Blair is that he looked at the EU issue in domestic politics and decided he didn't want to use his political capital on trying to take the country with him on it. Instead he played along with Eurosceptics, always presented himself as the brave British statesman going to Brussels to battle against the Europeans for British interests.
More than many things this capitulation to the Eurosceptic framing that the EU was something that was done to us, that we struggled against, rather than something we participated in, made the case for Leave.
I don't envisage a future British politician with stacks of political capital deciding to spend it on fundamentally changing our relationship with the EU. They'll make the same calculation as Blair, that more immediate domestic issues are a higher priority.
Then gave up the UK rebate, in exchange for the non-existant CAP reform.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
As usual you are not comparing like with like so this is mathematically illiterate. In an actual election there aren't any 'Don't knows' votes. You either vote for or against, whereas in a poll there are 'Don't knows'.
So the 'Don't know's' have 3 options. They can vote for, against or importantly abstain in a real election.
It is statistically highly improbable that in a split of 37/49/14 that it won't get the 49 vote share to 50 when the 'Don't know's' are reallocated. They don't even have to vote with the 49% as by simply not voting they boost both for and against and boost the 49% by more than the 37% because they will be boosted in the same ratio if they don't cast a vote (this is maths and nothing to do with the decision of the voters).
It would require nearly all the 'Don't know' to actually vote and vote for the 37% on an absolutely massive scale for the 49% to not top 50%.
And of course this is a poll in the first place so has statistical errors built in and these are far greater than this possibility so you would be better arguing that it is a poll and polls can be wrong than the argument you are putting which has a much lower probability.
Therefore one can say with almost certainty that more than 50% think leaving was a mistake (allowing for the statistical limitations of the original poll)
He said more than 50% think Brexit was wrong, he was wrong to do so as even he himself has admitted once don't knows are included. As I have already pointed out in 2016 most don't knows went Leave, hence Leave won even though most final polls had Remain ahead
All the evidence points to buyer's remorse over Brexit, and I would not dispute for a moment that those saying it was wrong are a majority
However, it is utterly pointless as Brexit has happened, and there is no mechanism you can switch like magic to us being in the EU as we were
Of course there is a debate to be had on the way forward, but the extreme views on both sides are not the answer, but sensible attitudes to improve the present arrangements are
Indeed, even if the majority wanted to re-join, which they do not at present, then the terms and conditions for re-joining and the actual state of the EU at that time bearing in mind the way so many Baltic states see Germany and France as appeasers for Putin, makes it very unlikely to happen in the near future as we develop trading agreements across the world
Everything changes and accepting change is the only way to a successful future
Well said and I am one who although a keen Remainer has no desire to rejoin and I apologise for getting sucked into these arguments with HYUFD as it is pointless on two fronts:
a) It is an argument about a poll that although interesting is meaningless as we aren't rejoining and it wasn't a rejoining poll anyway just an expression of whether it was a mistake or not. We all make lots of mistakes that are irreversible and we just have to suck it up, which is what we should do and try to make the most of it in a positive way.
b) An argument on maths or logic with HYUFD is pointless full stop. He has the mathematical ability of a 5 - 7 year old (or as per an earlier discussion an African, something he claims to be a 'Fact' and which I am never going to let him forget).
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
The point is they haven't repealed the rules. It's Brexit theatre
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Which is why you can't run a country by the variableness of opinion polls. When elections and referendums happen everyone knows they are for the long term.
It was already six years ago. And a week is a long time in politics.
The idea that you can leave, join, leave, join etc something as significant as the EU every six years or so is ludicrous. Hence the absurdity of thinking the SNP can have a second referendum about now, after 7 or 8 years.
Suppose they had one and won? Would they truly be open to rejoining the UK in a referendum in 2030?
In a democracy you can always have a vote, any time you like. Since no EU rejoin referendum is imminent I would assume that the earliest we would have one would be at least 15, maybe 20 years, after 2016. I don't think it would happen until there was clear evidence of a sustained and sustainable majority in favour, not least as both main parties would be terrified of going there until it was a clear vote winner. I think it is almost as likely to happen under a Tory government as a Labour one, since the Tories are a braver and more nimble/shameless outfit. I think we will join Schengen but not the Euro. A Euro opt out will be the one main concession we will get out of the negotiations.
To understand how badly Boris is polling, I checked and this is true Boris latest Scottish rating (-71) is the same as Putin's UK wide rating according to Yougov.
To be fair that just suggests the Scots lack perspective.
The opposite actually. Putin is worse, but further away.
None of the voters we spoke to are switching to Labour. The main reason? Keir Starmer. They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake". 7
This is a danger for Labour that we have discussed before. It needs to stand for something so voters will turn out for it, otherwise Starmer risks shedding anti-Tory voters to the Greens and LibDems or just staying at home.
Yes, very true. If the Tories do defenstrate and labour continue to be a jelly noticeboardthen movement into a GE will be one way. However. Victoria Versa applies and ive lost faith the Tories will choke off the pooch.
The link between these voters and Labour remains resolutely cut. They feel that Labour has "lost its identity" and is out of touch with "the working classes" - and that they have no plan or vision for the country. 8
Thats really interesting, and shows that its not enough for Labour to expect Red Wall voters to just return to the fold. They need a reason to do so. The danger is clear if you look to Scotland. Labour took Scotland for granted for many years, and now are in as bad a place as the Conservatives. The same may happen in the Red Wall. I don't know where the votes go, they may just not bother, giving up on the democratic process altogether.
Maybe its time for the PB party? Some excellent polices get floated on here, and there is a huge breadth of knowledge and experience.
It’s still surprising that no politician is calling for a temporary scrapping of fuel duty. 52p a litre, can be removed tonight if there’s the political will. It costs about £2bn a month, shows that the government is on top of the cost of living, and most importantly helps to put a lid on the inflation that’s quickly going to be everywhere.
It'd be politically difficult to ever reinstate it.
High fuel prices are socially and environmentally beneficial anyway.
None of the voters we spoke to are switching to Labour. The main reason? Keir Starmer. They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake". 7
This is a danger for Labour that we have discussed before. It needs to stand for something so voters will turn out for it, otherwise Starmer risks shedding anti-Tory voters to the Greens and LibDems or just staying at home.
Indeed, I think the country is crying out for a new direction, any direction in terms of policy.
One of my co-workers was mentioning just yesterday how rubbish the need for people to have foodbanks, especially when they're working in jobs are. This isn't how society is supposed to operate.
IMO they rather bury the lead... which is that Japanese railway companies aren't really railway companies. They are real estate companies that happen to have a railway business which contributes just 1/3 of their sales!
Other factors seem to include smarter competition, high tolls on motorways, higher population density...
A glass cabinet with Stalin’s ash tray, Stalin’s pipe, Stalin’s shaving kit, and then, quite casually, “stones from the Sachsenhausen concentration camp where Stalin’s son Jacob was shot”
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Well John. Take a deep breath, call on all years experience as you ask yourself: Is Labours new tactic of not focusing on Boris but on the Conservatives record in office really the wrong one, from here on in to the election?
Full of themselves some of the “big shot” journalists aren’t they considering they are so slow at understanding politics 🙂
Or maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh, maybe we get this piffle from them because they are in a market place and need to pay for a new car and a holiday etc
I think you're right on this. Also, if the Tories are busy damaging Boris then the last thing Starmer wants is to wade in, otherwise they will rally around the flag.
That said, Starmer didn't give a fantastic performance yesterday. I still think PMQs was a win for Starmer, but more like a scrappy 1-0 rather than 8-1. Under the circumstances, Boris will be okay with that.
You are right, it was trickier for Starmer than people realise, because those who secretly voted against Boris came not to bury Boris but to noisily praise him. I think Starmer expected that from them but lots of PB posters didn’t.
I don’t really see PMQs as a gladiator win lose thing. If you are doing the right thing it’s about planting seeds and building brick by brick for the future - like the PB conversation the other day learning in politics you don’t just pull a leaver and things happen, it’s about knowing that so working in the right way to move forward over time.
I absolutely appreciate how people bought popcorn ready for this PMQs, especially fellow travellers with the 148 who just want Boris Over asap - but when I put it to them, Labours new tactic of ignoring Boris, attacking thirteen years of Tory rule instead, presenting change of government as the change to want, nobody challenged that strategy and said it’s wrong.
I always play PMQs in how would I do it this week, how many questions, what questions, and Starmer did it just as I would have done - Boris has a tendency to have a “big calls right, getting things done” rant after Starmer’s last question, but Starmer changed the tone so much on his last one Boris couldn’t do his rant - it was more calculating clever than people are spinning it for sure.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do nor expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I refer this mistaken Gentleman to the post I made some moments ago 😆
Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.
Brexit is a binary choice.
We are in, or out.
There is no flex. That is a unicorn.
Then, there will be no sustainable settlement.
You can't win the argument by holding a gun to people's heads.
The sustainable settlement is out. There will be minor adjustments here and there to the current arrangements, but I think we're at the end and people just don't realise it yet.
Pro-EU campaigners still haven't come up with a better argument for rejoining than that we're not able to survive outside the EU. Until they have an argument that is rooted in self-confidence and respect there is no long-term future for the UK in the EU. Whenever we regained our confidence as a country in the future we'd be wanting to leave again.
I deeply regret this, but there's no use denying it.
I've been thinking about this some more - while the kettle boils - and I think my position is analogous to Loyalists to the King in 1790s USA, or a Protestant Unionist in late-1920s Kilkenny.
A different future was possible, but hysteresis is for politics as well as physics, and I just don't see a path from where we are to where I want to be - Britain as much a confident and comfortable part of Europe as Derbyshire is part of England.
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
The USA isn't Europe - distances are far greater and there isn't an international border in the middle.
A better example would be Munich to Berlin which has trains every 2 hours.
Or how about the UK is like Japan, a high population density island nation where 48% of workers commute by rail, and the rail companies are privatised and the major ones don't receive any subsidies at all.
Why are the Japanese capable of running an efficient, subsidy-free rail system but we supposedly can't?
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won. The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember. Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.
More than half say we shouldn't have done it.
Where is the polling with rejoin the EU over 50%?
I am referring to Brexit: right or wrong, not rejoin. Hence what I said: more than half say we shouldn't have done it. I am excluding don't knows. Latest YouGov 43/57 right/wrong. Including DK 37/49/14. Brexit is not popular. You are kidding yourself if you think this issue is settled.
So even then including DK only 49% think Brexit was wrong, ie just 1% more than the 48% who voted Remain in 2016
And those who think it was right is 37%, down 15pp or almost a third on the 52% who voted to leave. That doesn't look like a ringing endorsement does it? Don't we normally drop the DKs from polling discussions? We certainly do for VI polls, right? You are the polling expert though, not me.
We are not talking about those who think it was right we were talking about your statement that more than 50% of voters think Brexit was wrong. Including don't knows that was incorrect.
In referendums eg Quebec 1995, Don't Knows are often decisive
As usual you are not comparing like with like so this is mathematically illiterate. In an actual election there aren't any 'Don't knows' votes. You either vote for or against, whereas in a poll there are 'Don't knows'.
So the 'Don't know's' have 3 options. They can vote for, against or importantly abstain in a real election.
It is statistically highly improbable that in a split of 37/49/14 that it won't get the 49 vote share to 50 when the 'Don't know's' are reallocated. They don't even have to vote with the 49% as by simply not voting they boost both for and against and boost the 49% by more than the 37% because they will be boosted in the same ratio if they don't cast a vote (this is maths and nothing to do with the decision of the voters).
It would require nearly all the 'Don't know' to actually vote and vote for the 37% on an absolutely massive scale for the 49% to not top 50%.
And of course this is a poll in the first place so has statistical errors built in and these are far greater than this possibility so you would be better arguing that it is a poll and polls can be wrong than the argument you are putting which has a much lower probability.
Therefore one can say with almost certainty that more than 50% think leaving was a mistake (allowing for the statistical limitations of the original poll)
He said more than 50% think Brexit was wrong, he was wrong to do so as even he himself has admitted once don't knows are included. As I have already pointed out in 2016 most don't knows went Leave, hence Leave won even though most final polls had Remain ahead
All the evidence points to buyer's remorse over Brexit, and I would not dispute for a moment that those saying it was wrong are a majority
However, it is utterly pointless as Brexit has happened, and there is no mechanism you can switch like magic to us being in the EU as we were
Of course there is a debate to be had on the way forward, but the extreme views on both sides are not the answer, but sensible attitudes to improve the present arrangements are
Indeed, even if the majority wanted to re-join, which they do not at present, then the terms and conditions for re-joining and the actual state of the EU at that time bearing in mind the way so many Baltic states see Germany and France as appeasers for Putin, makes it very unlikely to happen in the near future as we develop trading agreements across the world
Everything changes and accepting change is the only way to a successful future
Well said and I am one who although a keen Remainer has no desire to rejoin and I apologise for getting sucked into these arguments with HYUFD as it is pointless on two fronts:
a) It is an argument about a poll that although interesting is meaningless as we aren't rejoining and it wasn't a rejoining poll anyway just an expression of whether it was a mistake or not. We all make lots of mistakes that are irreversible and we just have to suck it up, which is what we should do and try to make the most of it in a positive way.
b) An argument on maths or logic with HYUFD is pointless full stop. He has the mathematical ability of a 5 - 7 year old (or as per an earlier discussion an African, something he claims to be a 'Fact' and which I am never going to let him forget).
I think my mother would have said 'frustrating and obtuse'
You can't win the argument by holding a gun to people's heads.
There are 2 sustainable positions.
We had one. We threw it away.
We are now in the other, and Brexiteers have noticed it's shit.
This is a lie. The half-in status quo ante was not sustainable - had we voted to Remain the pressure to move to being fully in - including joining the euro and Schengen - would have been irresistible.
Sure, that's what Eurozealots like you want. But there's a reason the Remain campaign didn't tell the truth about it.
I don’t buy that at all. Neither major party was interested in adopting the Euro. Schengen was more likely, but also less impactful.
Don't you understand how the EU ratchet works? The day after a Remain vote we would have been under pressure to show we were "good Europeans" and we would have thrown away whatever leverage we previously had.
Gove's announcement on benefits to be considered for mortgages is excellent news. I mean they've been considered ripe for landlord benefit for donkey's years.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Oh good Lord. People are already allowed to use non-standard measures alongside metric. There is no law banning their use.
The law is simply that metric must be used as a standard, and the use of any other measures is additional to metric.
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
We chose an identity that doesn't exist.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
The link between these voters and Labour remains resolutely cut. They feel that Labour has "lost its identity" and is out of touch with "the working classes" - and that they have no plan or vision for the country. 8
Thats really interesting, and shows that its not enough for Labour to expect Red Wall voters to just return to the fold. They need a reason to do so. The danger is clear if you look to Scotland. Labour took Scotland for granted for many years, and now are in as bad a place as the Conservatives. The same may happen in the Red Wall. I don't know where the votes go, they may just not bother, giving up on the democratic process altogether.
Maybe its time for the PB party? Some excellent polices get floated on here, and there is a huge breadth of knowledge and experience.
It’s still surprising that no politician is calling for a temporary scrapping of fuel duty. 52p a litre, can be removed tonight if there’s the political will. It costs about £2bn a month, shows that the government is on top of the cost of living, and most importantly helps to put a lid on the inflation that’s quickly going to be everywhere.
It'd be politically difficult to ever reinstate it.
High fuel prices are socially and environmentally beneficial anyway.
Good luck saying that to the majority of people for whom the car is how they get to work, get their kids to school, and to see their family - and not just something done for your own entertainment of a quiet Sunday morning.
‘Abuse, assaults and big profits’ - children’s homes staff speak out’
This is just bullshit. Caring for vulnerable kids is a basic function of the state. If it’s going to be privatised, or done by charities, they need to be watched like a hawk by regulators.
The tories’ blind faith in the private sector - and cutting regulators budgets to a shoestring has caused real harm.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do nor expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I refer this mistaken Gentleman to the post I made some moments ago 😆
On this I think we should quietly agree to disagree, but I do like the Gentleman
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
You're the only person I've ever encountered who remembers that and/or knew about it in the first place.
Gove's announcement on benefits to be considered for mortgages is excellent news. I mean they've been considered ripe for landlord benefit for donkey's years.
A possible political downside: benefits are paid for in part by the taxes of people living and working in expensive areas who can't afford to buy but are obliged by taxation to fund others to do so.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Slippery slimeball is absolutely right.
This is a man who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeremy Corbyn, serving in his Shadow Cabinet while all the antisemitism was happening and turning a total blind eye to it while decent folk in Labour were resigning to the backbenches or quitting the party. All because it would further his own career path. The moment that Corbyn had served his purpose, he was prepared to campaign on a pledge of uniting the party to get leadership votes then purge him from the party in order to again further his own career by suddenly seeing what he apparently never saw while in the Shadow Cabinet.
He has gone from we will respect the referendum and Brexit must happen, to there must be a second referendum and we will campaign to remain, to voting for Boris's deal and considering the matter closed.
He will say anything, screw over anyone, in order to further his own agenda. He's a not obese Boris Johnson in a smart fitting suit, minus the personality.
You can't win the argument by holding a gun to people's heads.
There are 2 sustainable positions.
We had one. We threw it away.
We are now in the other, and Brexiteers have noticed it's shit.
This is a lie. The half-in status quo ante was not sustainable - had we voted to Remain the pressure to move to being fully in - including joining the euro and Schengen - would have been irresistible.
Sure, that's what Eurozealots like you want. But there's a reason the Remain campaign didn't tell the truth about it.
I don’t buy that at all. Neither major party was interested in adopting the Euro. Schengen was more likely, but also less impactful.
Don't you understand how the EU ratchet works? The day after a Remain vote we would have been under pressure to show we were "good Europeans" and we would have thrown away whatever leverage we previously had.
More likely is that an incoming europhile party - Labour - would, at the next available opportunity, have taken us into the euro and Schengen and everything, sans referendum, on the basis that Well you voted for Europe, here it is
The pressure would have been internal, as well as external
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
We chose an identity that doesn't exist.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
You can't win the argument by holding a gun to people's heads.
There are 2 sustainable positions.
We had one. We threw it away.
We are now in the other, and Brexiteers have noticed it's shit.
This is a lie. The half-in status quo ante was not sustainable - had we voted to Remain the pressure to move to being fully in - including joining the euro and Schengen - would have been irresistible.
Sure, that's what Eurozealots like you want. But there's a reason the Remain campaign didn't tell the truth about it.
I don’t buy that at all. Neither major party was interested in adopting the Euro. Schengen was more likely, but also less impactful.
Don't you understand how the EU ratchet works? The day after a Remain vote we would have been under pressure to show we were "good Europeans" and we would have thrown away whatever leverage we previously had.
More likely is that an incoming europhile party - Labour - would, at the next available opportunity, have taken us into the euro and Schengen and everything, sans referendum, on the basis that Well you voted for Europe, here it is
The pressure would have been internal, as well as external
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
We chose an identity that doesn't exist.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
What?? Britishness does notr exist? Nor Englishness?
Go jump in a lake in Brussels. No wonder you guys lost. You would lose again. The mask just keeps slipping
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
You praised the example of Japan earlier. Japan has a fantastic high-speed intercity Shinkansen service. There are more services than in the UK. They’re more regular. They’re cheaper. They’re quicker. And the trains are just nicer to be on. Lots and lots of people use this service. This is all possible because the Shinkansen network is on different rails to local services and there was huge Govt investment in building it.
If you build it, they will come. The Japanese government chose to make a large investment, and the country benefits in terms of improved economy, less pollution and happier people!
So, it’s not a case of saying a service is not a frequently travelled route, so there shouldn’t be any trains on it. If you invest, it will become a frequently travelled route. That will benefit the country.
The Liverpool to Paris comparison is more complicated. There isn’t a direct route, but if you change in London, there are numerous services throughout the day. There are greater challenges to a Liverpool to Paris route: namely, an international border and a sea being in the way. Still, the main reason such a route doesn’t exist is because the UK has been very slow to invest in high-speed rail services.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
If it's an identity that doesn't exist, how do you explain away all the people who feel that way about themselves?
Your post could have been said verbatim by a Scottish independence supporter who regards Britain as artificial and Britishness as an imposition. Both you and they are just choosing not to reconcile yourselves with the respective referendum results.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
You're the only person I've ever encountered who remembers that and/or knew about it in the first place.
Then I’m here to remind everyone
Also, people may not remember the specifics, but I bet they remember a vague iffiness surrounding Starmer, on the Brexit question. The wisdom of crowds is often intuitive
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
We chose an identity that doesn't exist.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
Exactly the reverse. We rejected an identity that was being forced upon us and which we did not want. The only angst is amongst the irreconcilables like yourself.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Labour MPs will be praying that SKS gets a FPN
Nah. 🙂 Starmer and Davey are doing just fine for ousting the Tories at the next election. They are going about it quietly patiently cleverly in the right way.
You have got to keep in mind, if Mike Smithson is right about how much the 2019 poll was keeping Corbyn out, there wasn’t much enthusiasm for electing either Boris or the Tories in the first place - the 350 seats a castle made of sand.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Slippery slimeball is absolutely right.
This is a man who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeremy Corbyn, serving in his Shadow Cabinet while all the antisemitism was happening and turning a total blind eye to it while decent folk in Labour were resigning to the backbenches or quitting the party. All because it would further his own career path. The moment that Corbyn had served his purpose, he was prepared to campaign on a pledge of uniting the party to get leadership votes then purge him from the party in order to again further his own career by suddenly seeing what he apparently never saw while in the Shadow Cabinet.
He has gone from we will respect the referendum and Brexit must happen, to there must be a second referendum and we will campaign to remain, to voting for Boris's deal and considering the matter closed.
He will say anything, screw over anyone, in order to further his own agenda. He's a not obese Boris Johnson in a smart fitting suit, minus the personality.
I was being polite, but your remarks are true and increasingly Starmer is looking a lame duck
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
We chose an identity that doesn't exist.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
Indeed there is a problem. I think that Ref2016 was about our constitutional identity - very similar to ScotRef2015. But there isn't even agreement as to whether that was the case.
For Brexit supporters the sheer wilfulness of denying the nature of an EU with a parliament, political leadership, flag, currency, courts, central bank and overriding legal and legislative powers is still amazing. And it is still going on!
The link between these voters and Labour remains resolutely cut. They feel that Labour has "lost its identity" and is out of touch with "the working classes" - and that they have no plan or vision for the country. 8
Thats really interesting, and shows that its not enough for Labour to expect Red Wall voters to just return to the fold. They need a reason to do so. The danger is clear if you look to Scotland. Labour took Scotland for granted for many years, and now are in as bad a place as the Conservatives. The same may happen in the Red Wall. I don't know where the votes go, they may just not bother, giving up on the democratic process altogether.
Maybe its time for the PB party? Some excellent polices get floated on here, and there is a huge breadth of knowledge and experience.
It’s still surprising that no politician is calling for a temporary scrapping of fuel duty. 52p a litre, can be removed tonight if there’s the political will. It costs about £2bn a month, shows that the government is on top of the cost of living, and most importantly helps to put a lid on the inflation that’s quickly going to be everywhere.
It'd be politically difficult to ever reinstate it.
High fuel prices are socially and environmentally beneficial anyway.
Good luck saying that to the majority of people for whom the car is how they get to work, get their kids to school, and to see their family - and not just something done for your own entertainment of a quiet Sunday morning.
They got a great deal for a long time, and if they don't want fuel duty, they will end up accepting rationing.
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
We chose an identity that doesn't exist.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
What?? Britishness does notr exist? Nor Englishness?
Go jump in a lake in Brussels. No wonder you guys lost. You would lose again. The mask just keeps slipping
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
The point is they haven't repealed the rules. It's Brexit theatre
Ah well that is a different matter and one I agree with you on. I am just arguing about the basic principle.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
Thought: Starmer is totally hamstrung by his previous crappiness over Brexit
Because he was a shameful 2nd voter, he is desperate to talk about anything other than Brexit (see numerous interviews) and he won’t go near anything like the Single Market (tho he must want it personally, and he will come under pressure to pursue it). He knows that if he so much as mentions it, the Tories will remind everyone of his 2nd voteyness, and he won’t be able to defend himself. Because there is no defence
If Labour had chosen a leader who was more Leavey and less tarnished on Brexit, they could now honestly talk about EEA etc, and they would not suffer unduly. They would also gain millions of Remainer votes (from the LDs and SNP as well as the Tories)
it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Slippery slimeball is absolutely right.
This is a man who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeremy Corbyn, serving in his Shadow Cabinet while all the antisemitism was happening and turning a total blind eye to it while decent folk in Labour were resigning to the backbenches or quitting the party. All because it would further his own career path. The moment that Corbyn had served his purpose, he was prepared to campaign on a pledge of uniting the party to get leadership votes then purge him from the party in order to again further his own career by suddenly seeing what he apparently never saw while in the Shadow Cabinet.
He has gone from we will respect the referendum and Brexit must happen, to there must be a second referendum and we will campaign to remain, to voting for Boris's deal and considering the matter closed.
He will say anything, screw over anyone, in order to further his own agenda. He's a not obese Boris Johnson in a smart fitting suit, minus the personality.
Your post is illogical.
“To further his own agenda”
What is his agenda? Surely the problem is that he doesn’t have one?
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
A Labour minority government with the Tories as the largest party is probably what will end up happening.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
If the answer was Boris it must've been a damn' silly question!
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do nor expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I refer this mistaken Gentleman to the post I made some moments ago 😆
On this I think we should quietly agree to disagree, but I do like the Gentleman
That Boris is still there at the election and that the Tories lose the election is totally obvious now, there are more thoughtful things to discuss - such as on what platform do the Tories regain power anytime soon? Boris hard Brexit with **** business? Or If in the post Boris situation they repudiate the Boris era, attack the Boris era as unConservative especially fiscally, how much of Boris Brexit deal will Tories be attacking? Do they hold the new voters Brexit Boris brought along?
To what degree has this Boris era damaged the Tory brand for years to come?
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Labour MPs will be praying that SKS gets a FPN
I know you have said this several times but I wonder why? I am not a huge fan, but then I am not a Labour voter. My view is he is doing ok. Has some good moments and some poor ones. Not sure who you would replace him with.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
You praised the example of Japan earlier. Japan has a fantastic high-speed intercity Shinkansen service. There are more services than in the UK. They’re more regular. They’re cheaper. They’re quicker. And the trains are just nicer to be on. Lots and lots of people use this service. This is all possible because the Shinkansen network is on different rails to local services and there was huge Govt investment in building it.
If you build it, they will come. The Japanese government chose to make a large investment, and the country benefits in terms of improved economy, less pollution and happier people!
So, it’s not a case of saying a service is not a frequently travelled route, so there shouldn’t be any trains on it. If you invest, it will become a frequently travelled route. That will benefit the country.
The Liverpool to Paris comparison is more complicated. There isn’t a direct route, but if you change in London, there are numerous services throughout the day. There are greater challenges to a Liverpool to Paris route: namely, an international border and a sea being in the way. Still, the main reason such a route doesn’t exist is because the UK has been very slow to invest in high-speed rail services.
Your example of building a service is an investment, that is the sort of long-term structural reforms the state should be getting involved in for strategic planning.
Paying staff wages is not an investment, it is an operating expense.
The Japanese have done it right, they invest in the infrastructure while having the customers pay for the running costs. We spend decades debating any new infrastructure while politicians and unions argue over the running costs and customers get subsidised.
Our system is arse over tit. Invest in infrastructure, yes. Subsidise fares or pay staff wages, no. The state should be planning infrastructure improvements, but should have nothing to do with the RMT or fares.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Labour MPs will be praying that SKS gets a FPN
Nah. 🙂 Starmer and Davey are doing just fine for ousting the Tories at the next election. They are going about it quietly patiently cleverly in the right way.
You have got to keep in mind, if Mike Smithson is right about how much the 2019 poll was keeping Corbyn out, there wasn’t much enthusiasm for electing either Boris or the Tories in the first place - the 350 seats a castle made of sand.
I'm afraid I think this is quite wrong.
The great danger to the opposition is that Boris uses his natural talent for campaigning, with his energy and chutzpah, to somehow bludgeon himself back into contention during an election campaign. Despite everything.
Faced with a pair of grey non-entities it's not inconceivable he may just do it. Stranger things have happened.
Remember Boris almost wilfully gets into scrapes. He just sees them as opportunities to demonstrate his feats of escapology.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Slippery slimeball is absolutely right.
This is a man who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeremy Corbyn, serving in his Shadow Cabinet while all the antisemitism was happening and turning a total blind eye to it while decent folk in Labour were resigning to the backbenches or quitting the party. All because it would further his own career path. The moment that Corbyn had served his purpose, he was prepared to campaign on a pledge of uniting the party to get leadership votes then purge him from the party in order to again further his own career by suddenly seeing what he apparently never saw while in the Shadow Cabinet.
He has gone from we will respect the referendum and Brexit must happen, to there must be a second referendum and we will campaign to remain, to voting for Boris's deal and considering the matter closed.
He will say anything, screw over anyone, in order to further his own agenda. He's a not obese Boris Johnson in a smart fitting suit, minus the personality.
Your post is illogical.
“To further his own agenda”
What is his agenda? Surely the problem is that he doesn’t have one?
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
Almost certainly true. I’d quite like a pragmatic PM to say, Right we’re out of the EU, we’re not going back, but we can do better than this - and then confidently put the respective choices to the British people. We are adults. We can cope
Starmer cannot do this, as I say below, because he is crippled by his previous shameful behaviour over Brexit
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do nor expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I refer this mistaken Gentleman to the post I made some moments ago 😆
On this I think we should quietly agree to disagree, but I do like the Gentleman
That Boris is still there at the election and that the Tories lose the election is totally obvious now, there are more thoughtful things to discuss - such as on what platform do the Tories regain power on anytime soon? Boris hard Brexit with **** business? Or If in the post Boris situation they repudiate the Boris era, attack the Boris era as in Conservative especially fiscally, how much of Boris Brexit deal will Tories be attacking? Do they hold the new voters Brexit Boris brought along?
To what degree has this Boris era damaged the Tory brand for years to come?
Partygate damaged Boris, as far as brexit, covid and Ukraine he has a pass mark from me
Indeed, all the evidence is partygate 'ratnered' his personal brand and a new leader facing Starmer would have a good chance of a majority
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Slippery slimeball is absolutely right.
This is a man who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeremy Corbyn, serving in his Shadow Cabinet while all the antisemitism was happening and turning a total blind eye to it while decent folk in Labour were resigning to the backbenches or quitting the party. All because it would further his own career path. The moment that Corbyn had served his purpose, he was prepared to campaign on a pledge of uniting the party to get leadership votes then purge him from the party in order to again further his own career by suddenly seeing what he apparently never saw while in the Shadow Cabinet.
He has gone from we will respect the referendum and Brexit must happen, to there must be a second referendum and we will campaign to remain, to voting for Boris's deal and considering the matter closed.
He will say anything, screw over anyone, in order to further his own agenda. He's a not obese Boris Johnson in a smart fitting suit, minus the personality.
Your post is illogical.
“To further his own agenda”
What is his agenda? Surely the problem is that he doesn’t have one?
Becoming Prime Minister.
He's like Boris, he's furthering his own career path, what he'll do when he gets there is anybody's guess.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I know Starmer's actions at that time really grind your gears and whilst I personally disagree (I, unsurprisingly, prefer that view that more democracy, another vote, wouldn't have been a Bad Thing) I see where you're coming from. And millions would agree with you.
But in 5, 10, 15, 20 years time, if Brexit is still perceived to be not delivering what most people, particularly Leavers, expected, it might be viewed as a doomed yet valiant attempt to give the British people a chance to vote on concrete, detailed proposals. To stare down the barrel of reality, perhaps, following the sugar rush of a referendum that, let's be honest, really didn't signpost us to where we are now.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
Almost certainly true. I’d quite like a pragmatic PM to say, Right we’re out of the EU, we’re not going back, but we can do better than this - and then confidently put the respective choices to the British people. We are adults. We can cope
Starmer cannot do this, as I say below, because he is crippled by his previous shameful behaviour over Brexit
There are two major issues, one is dynamic alignment and the other is freedom of movement. Any changes to “make trade easier with the EU”, go through one or both of these.
There is little trust that the EU, especially Macron, wouldn’t use the first in a vindictive manner, and the second would be a political non-starter for many years to come.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do nor expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I refer this mistaken Gentleman to the post I made some moments ago 😆
On this I think we should quietly agree to disagree, but I do like the Gentleman
That Boris is still there at the election and that the Tories lose the election is totally obvious now, there are more thoughtful things to discuss - such as on what platform do the Tories regain power on anytime soon? Boris hard Brexit with **** business? Or If in the post Boris situation they repudiate the Boris era, attack the Boris era as in Conservative especially fiscally, how much of Boris Brexit deal will Tories be attacking? Do they hold the new voters Brexit Boris brought along?
To what degree has this Boris era damaged the Tory brand for years to come?
Partygate damaged Boris, as far as brexit, covid and Ukraine he has a pass mark from me
Indeed, all the evidence is partygate 'ratnered' his personal brand and a new leader facing Starmer would have a good chance of a majority
Not based on the latest focus groups. The Tory brand is damaged after they voted to keep Johnson.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
What if a shop refuses to sell in metric? If I ask for a kilo of bananas and the shop refuses to do that because they don't recognise metric measurements is that okay? If shops want to measure things in stones or perches or moon dust and add to their costs I don't care as long as they don't refuse to measure things in units that I can understand.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
The USA isn't Europe - distances are far greater and there isn't an international border in the middle.
A better example would be Munich to Berlin which has trains every 2 hours.
Or how about the UK is like Japan, a high population density island nation where 48% of workers commute by rail, and the rail companies are privatised and the major ones don't receive any subsidies at all.
Why are the Japanese capable of running an efficient, subsidy-free rail system but we supposedly can't?
Because lots and lots and lots of state money built the excellent infrastructure.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
The USA isn't Europe - distances are far greater and there isn't an international border in the middle.
A better example would be Munich to Berlin which has trains every 2 hours.
Or how about the UK is like Japan, a high population density island nation where 48% of workers commute by rail, and the rail companies are privatised and the major ones don't receive any subsidies at all.
Why are the Japanese capable of running an efficient, subsidy-free rail system but we supposedly can't?
The Japanese high speed lines were mostly built under state control, iiuc. Then they were privatized and the accumulated debts were generously taken over by the fund that's supposed to be looking after my pension.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
Slippery slimeball is absolutely right.
This is a man who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeremy Corbyn, serving in his Shadow Cabinet while all the antisemitism was happening and turning a total blind eye to it while decent folk in Labour were resigning to the backbenches or quitting the party. All because it would further his own career path. The moment that Corbyn had served his purpose, he was prepared to campaign on a pledge of uniting the party to get leadership votes then purge him from the party in order to again further his own career by suddenly seeing what he apparently never saw while in the Shadow Cabinet.
He has gone from we will respect the referendum and Brexit must happen, to there must be a second referendum and we will campaign to remain, to voting for Boris's deal and considering the matter closed.
He will say anything, screw over anyone, in order to further his own agenda. He's a not obese Boris Johnson in a smart fitting suit, minus the personality.
Your post is illogical.
“To further his own agenda”
What is his agenda? Surely the problem is that he doesn’t have one?
Becoming Prime Minister.
He's like Boris, he's furthering his own career path, what he'll do when he gets there is anybody's guess.
You’re howling at the wind. Outraged that the leader of the opposition’s agenda is to become PM?
We already use imperial measures for many, many things in this country. As far as I know, it's no longer illegal to use them on market stalls or in butchers etc either and hasn't been for some time. Most retailers won't bother with them but as Richard says giving people more choice is hardly worth worrying about.
It's just another headline grabbing 'policy' that makes no difference (akin to the endless 'pubs will be allowed to open past 11pm for [insert holiday/sporting event here]' when in fact they have been allowed to open past 11pm for more than 15 years!!)
Wandering around Gori (Stalin’s hometown) this morning I kept thinking: Christ, it looks like there’s been a bloody war. I presume that in fact I was just looking at decay and dereliction
But no. There was a war
“In the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, the town came under aerial attack by the Russian Air Force from the outset of the conflict. Military targets and residential districts of Gori were hit by the airstrikes, resulting in civilian injuries and deaths.[7][8] Human Rights Watch (HRW) claimed that Russian forces had indiscriminately deployed cluster bombs in civilian areas around Gori. According to HRW, on August 12 Russian forces dropped cluster bombs in the center of Gori, killing 11 civilians and wounding dozens more.[9] Russian military officials deny using cluster munitions in the conflict, calling the HRW assertion "slanderous" and questioning the HRW's objectivity.[10] Numerous unexploded "bomblets" have been found by locals and HRW employees.[11]”
No doubt the economic forecasts for next year are getting some focus from remainers who see a connection with our changed trading status with the EU. You also have the change in GDP figures since end of 2019 that show only London and Northern Ireland in positive territory. So what do the Brexit true believers want to focus on?
That's right the Northern Ireland Protocol. Another attempt possibly subverting international law to square a circle that can't be done. You almost wonder if some of these people WANT Brexit to fail and are acting as trojan horses?
We already use imperial measures for many, many things in this country. As far as I know, it's no longer illegal to use them on market stalls or in butchers etc either and hasn't been for some time. Most retailers won't bother with them but as Richard says giving people more choice is hardly worth worrying about.
It's just another headline grabbing 'policy' that makes no difference (akin to the endless 'pubs will be allowed to open past 11pm for [insert holiday/sporting event here] when in fact they have been allowed to open past 11pm for more than 15 years!!)
Will they be allowed to refuse to use metric altogether under the new rules? If so, and the shop refuses to use metric, how does that provide the customer with more choice?
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
Almost certainly true. I’d quite like a pragmatic PM to say, Right we’re out of the EU, we’re not going back, but we can do better than this - and then confidently put the respective choices to the British people. We are adults. We can cope
Starmer cannot do this, as I say below, because he is crippled by his previous shameful behaviour over Brexit
The Tories reward for all this was the election victory in 2019. There's no chance Starmer being a remainer will win a 2023 or 24 election for them. Most people have moved on.
Thought: Starmer is totally hamstrung by his previous crappiness over Brexit
Because he was a shameful 2nd voter, he is desperate to talk about anything other than Brexit (see numerous interviews) and he won’t go near anything like the Single Market (tho he must want it personally, and he will come under pressure to pursue it). He knows that if he so much as mentions it, the Tories will remind everyone of his 2nd voteyness, and he won’t be able to defend himself. Because there is no defence
If Labour had chosen a leader who was more Leavey and less tarnished on Brexit, they could now honestly talk about EEA etc, and they would not suffer unduly. They would also gain millions of Remainer votes (from the LDs and SNP as well as the Tories)
Of course Boris's brother Jo, to whom Boris awarded a peerage, was also a second voter. Presumably this is why Boris has never embarked upon a full-blown attack on Sir Keir over the issue - double standards and all that. But if Boris goes then his successor might have free rein to exploit Sir Keir's treachery and subterfuge.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
You praised the example of Japan earlier. Japan has a fantastic high-speed intercity Shinkansen service. There are more services than in the UK. They’re more regular. They’re cheaper. They’re quicker. And the trains are just nicer to be on. Lots and lots of people use this service. This is all possible because the Shinkansen network is on different rails to local services and there was huge Govt investment in building it.
If you build it, they will come. The Japanese government chose to make a large investment, and the country benefits in terms of improved economy, less pollution and happier people!
So, it’s not a case of saying a service is not a frequently travelled route, so there shouldn’t be any trains on it. If you invest, it will become a frequently travelled route. That will benefit the country.
The Liverpool to Paris comparison is more complicated. There isn’t a direct route, but if you change in London, there are numerous services throughout the day. There are greater challenges to a Liverpool to Paris route: namely, an international border and a sea being in the way. Still, the main reason such a route doesn’t exist is because the UK has been very slow to invest in high-speed rail services.
Your example of building a service is an investment, that is the sort of long-term structural reforms the state should be getting involved in for strategic planning.
Paying staff wages is not an investment, it is an operating expense.
The Japanese have done it right, they invest in the infrastructure while having the customers pay for the running costs. We spend decades debating any new infrastructure while politicians and unions argue over the running costs and customers get subsidised.
Our system is arse over tit. Invest in infrastructure, yes. Subsidise fares or pay staff wages, no. The state should be planning infrastructure improvements, but should have nothing to do with the RMT or fares.
Great, we are in some agreement. As we often are!
So, how do we get from here to there? (Do things differently decades ago is correct, but impractical.)
Until we’ve sorted ourselves out and made the appropriate investments in infrastructure and that has fed through in its effects — which will take a number of decades — what do we do? Because we didn’t make the investments, we have to support running costs. (Just as Japanese rail was state owned while all their investments were being made.)
An independence referendum will take place in Scotland by the end of next year, according to the SNP Constitution Secretary.
Angus Robertson was asked at the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee at Holyrood earlier today if he believed a vote would go ahead as planned for the end of 2023.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
Almost certainly true. I’d quite like a pragmatic PM to say, Right we’re out of the EU, we’re not going back, but we can do better than this - and then confidently put the respective choices to the British people. We are adults. We can cope
Starmer cannot do this, as I say below, because he is crippled by his previous shameful behaviour over Brexit
You are literally the only person in Britain for whom it has salience. I've never seen anybody else ever mention it. Not even the most fucked-in-the-head leavers on here nevermind normal people who don't follow politics obssessively.
We already use imperial measures for many, many things in this country. As far as I know, it's no longer illegal to use them on market stalls or in butchers etc either and hasn't been for some time. Most retailers won't bother with them but as Richard says giving people more choice is hardly worth worrying about.
It's just another headline grabbing 'policy' that makes no difference (akin to the endless 'pubs will be allowed to open past 11pm for [insert holiday/sporting event here] when in fact they have been allowed to open past 11pm for more than 15 years!!)
Will they be allowed to refuse to use metric altogether under the new rules? If so, and the shop refuses to use metric, how does that provide the customer with more choice?
I don't know, and I don't think that it does. But why would a shop do that? I suspect most will use metric only or both – as they do now.
An independence referendum will take place in Scotland by the end of next year, according to the SNP Constitution Secretary.
Angus Robertson was asked at the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee at Holyrood earlier today if he believed a vote would go ahead as planned for the end of 2023.
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
Almost certainly true. I’d quite like a pragmatic PM to say, Right we’re out of the EU, we’re not going back, but we can do better than this - and then confidently put the respective choices to the British people. We are adults. We can cope
Starmer cannot do this, as I say below, because he is crippled by his previous shameful behaviour over Brexit
I really don't understand why the Tories don't just get on and replace Boris with Penny Mordaunt. Forget Jeremy Hunt and the other suits.
She's a Brexiteer. Bright and breezy with considerable oomph. Would give the grey knights a torrid time.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do nor expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I refer this mistaken Gentleman to the post I made some moments ago 😆
On this I think we should quietly agree to disagree, but I do like the Gentleman
That Boris is still there at the election and that the Tories lose the election is totally obvious now, there are more thoughtful things to discuss - such as on what platform do the Tories regain power on anytime soon? Boris hard Brexit with **** business? Or If in the post Boris situation they repudiate the Boris era, attack the Boris era as in Conservative especially fiscally, how much of Boris Brexit deal will Tories be attacking? Do they hold the new voters Brexit Boris brought along?
To what degree has this Boris era damaged the Tory brand for years to come?
Partygate damaged Boris, as far as brexit, covid and Ukraine he has a pass mark from me
Indeed, all the evidence is partygate 'ratnered' his personal brand and a new leader facing Starmer would have a good chance of a majority
Not based on the latest focus groups. The Tory brand is damaged after they voted to keep Johnson.
The same focus group showed not a single Labour transfer. I'm not sure its entirely reliable as a guide
An independence referendum will take place in Scotland by the end of next year, according to the SNP Constitution Secretary.
Angus Robertson was asked at the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee at Holyrood earlier today if he believed a vote would go ahead as planned for the end of 2023.
We already use imperial measures for many, many things in this country. As far as I know, it's no longer illegal to use them on market stalls or in butchers etc either and hasn't been for some time. Most retailers won't bother with them but as Richard says giving people more choice is hardly worth worrying about.
It's just another headline grabbing 'policy' that makes no difference (akin to the endless 'pubs will be allowed to open past 11pm for [insert holiday/sporting event here] when in fact they have been allowed to open past 11pm for more than 15 years!!)
Will they be allowed to refuse to use metric altogether under the new rules? If so, and the shop refuses to use metric, how does that provide the customer with more choice?
It doesn't, but it gives people selling stuff a small opportunity to mislead customers. So there is extra choice for sellers.
What’s the PB sitrep on war in Ukraine? Our national media are starting to give us pessimism on how it’s going now and likely to end up? ☹️
There have been no changes in the frontline for two days in a row. We're increasingly close to a stalemate.
If the pace of Western supplies of equipment and ammunition can be maintained or increased then I am confident Ukraine can prevail. However, that's a big ask, and supplies to Ukraine seem to be adhoc and piecemeal. They need more consistent supplies to replace losses and equip new units.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do nor expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I refer this mistaken Gentleman to the post I made some moments ago 😆
On this I think we should quietly agree to disagree, but I do like the Gentleman
That Boris is still there at the election and that the Tories lose the election is totally obvious now, there are more thoughtful things to discuss - such as on what platform do the Tories regain power on anytime soon? Boris hard Brexit with **** business? Or If in the post Boris situation they repudiate the Boris era, attack the Boris era as in Conservative especially fiscally, how much of Boris Brexit deal will Tories be attacking? Do they hold the new voters Brexit Boris brought along?
To what degree has this Boris era damaged the Tory brand for years to come?
Partygate damaged Boris, as far as brexit, covid and Ukraine he has a pass mark from me
Indeed, all the evidence is partygate 'ratnered' his personal brand and a new leader facing Starmer would have a good chance of a majority
Not based on the latest focus groups. The Tory brand is damaged after they voted to keep Johnson.
Yes but the 148 will terminate his premiership in due course
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
Almost certainly true. I’d quite like a pragmatic PM to say, Right we’re out of the EU, we’re not going back, but we can do better than this - and then confidently put the respective choices to the British people. We are adults. We can cope
Starmer cannot do this, as I say below, because he is crippled by his previous shameful behaviour over Brexit
You are literally the only person in Britain for whom it has salience. I've never seen anybody else ever mention it. Not even the most fucked-in-the-head leavers on here nevermind normal people who don't follow politics obssessively.
Not true, There was a brilliant article about it in the Spectator, by the heroic ex-PB-er @SeanT so at least six other people care
We already use imperial measures for many, many things in this country. As far as I know, it's no longer illegal to use them on market stalls or in butchers etc either and hasn't been for some time. Most retailers won't bother with them but as Richard says giving people more choice is hardly worth worrying about.
It's just another headline grabbing 'policy' that makes no difference (akin to the endless 'pubs will be allowed to open past 11pm for [insert holiday/sporting event here] when in fact they have been allowed to open past 11pm for more than 15 years!!)
Will they be allowed to refuse to use metric altogether under the new rules? If so, and the shop refuses to use metric, how does that provide the customer with more choice?
I don't know, and I don't think that it does. But why would a shop do that? I suspect most will use metric only or both – as they do now.
Yes, I can't imagine why a shop would do anything that might make it harder for consumers to compare prices and figure out if they are being ripped off...
@jamesjohnson252 in the chair thanks to @KekstCNC asking 2019 Tory voters in Wakefield what they think about today's politics:
Johnson: "Untrustworthy... A puppet." Starmer: “Slippery slimeball”
Listen to from 11am times.radio
I am genuinely surprised about the Starmer impression. I am not a supporter and could not bring myself to vote for him but I never got the impression he was a slippery slimeball in the (IMHO) Blair mould. If anything I just think he is rather boring and uninspiring.
The one thing that most people know about him is that he's a lawyer.
A lot people remember that he was strongly in favour of a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, as Shadow Brexit Secretary,. He wanted to demolish British democracy
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
I think as long as the Tories are able to activate Brexit as a live issue and are positioning themseelves as 'the party of' it probably makes Hung Parliament/Labour minority their worst posdible result and Tory largest party the most likely. As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Yes
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
OTOH it's quite possible that to get out of the EU we needed Boris, while to coherently stay the course we need a more balanced and diplomatically capable government.
Almost certainly true. I’d quite like a pragmatic PM to say, Right we’re out of the EU, we’re not going back, but we can do better than this - and then confidently put the respective choices to the British people. We are adults. We can cope
Starmer cannot do this, as I say below, because he is crippled by his previous shameful behaviour over Brexit
I really don't understand why the Tories don't just get on and replace Boris with Penny Mordaunt. Forget Jeremy Hunt and the other suits.
She's a Brexiteer. Bright and breezy with considerable oomph. Would give the grey knights a torrid time.
Obvs really.
She wears suits too. Unless just possibly you are momentarily thinking of her bathing dress, which I suppose counts as a suit, albeit a swimsuit.
Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line... Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints. And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied. At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ? This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Because they are both government controlled and government subsidised. The subsidy represents a significant part of their income - much higher thanks to the pandemic - and they are still waiting for government guidance for the future. Without which they have no basis to negotiate.
Government first needs to do its bloody job.
The pandemic is over. The Government should withdraw its subsidy entirely.
I couldn't care less what the rail staff make, they should get the fair market value for their labour. If that's £20k per annum then fine, if its £100k per annum then fine.
But every single penny of their wages should be paid from money their employers make from their customers. If the staff want more wages then either the employer needs more customers, so give good customer service etc to ensure customers keep using you, or the same amount of customers but increased revenue per customer, so either 'upsell' additional products to the same customers or in this case pass on any wages via increased fares.
The staff should get whatever the customers they're serving are prepared to pay for. Every penny should come from customers.
Shutting down the railways is perhaps the libertarian view, but I doubt you'd have the support of more than a handful of fellow eccentrics.
I don't suggest shutting down the railways, I suggest letting the market resolve prices....
Transport infrastructure, rail included, is both a public good and almost impossible to leave to the free market in any advanced economy. Rail included; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies
You're suggesting we indulge your fantasy.
The USA is a humongous continent-spanning country with a massive railway network and freight rail doesn't get a penny of taxpayer support and Amtrak receives less taxpayer support than the UK gives railways.
The government makes a profit not a loss on road transport as fuel and road tax/VED much more than cover road infrastructure, so we're self-funding too.
One morning, my taxi to take me to the train station in Charlotte was late, so I missed my train to DC. I asked when the next train was. “Tomorrow.”
One train per day!
Don’t tell me the US has good trains.
How many trains a day should there be for an interstate 399 mile journey? If that's not a frequently travelled route then yours being the last (or only) train a day is absolutely reasonable.
No reason to pay staff to run empty trains backwards and forwards, and if there is the demand then the staff can be paid.
Your route is the same distance as Liverpool to Paris, how many trains a day operate between Liverpool and Paris? Last I checked it was zero, so the USA has us beat there, it's just your expectations are unreasonable.
You praised the example of Japan earlier. Japan has a fantastic high-speed intercity Shinkansen service. There are more services than in the UK. They’re more regular. They’re cheaper. They’re quicker. And the trains are just nicer to be on. Lots and lots of people use this service. This is all possible because the Shinkansen network is on different rails to local services and there was huge Govt investment in building it.
If you build it, they will come. The Japanese government chose to make a large investment, and the country benefits in terms of improved economy, less pollution and happier people!
So, it’s not a case of saying a service is not a frequently travelled route, so there shouldn’t be any trains on it. If you invest, it will become a frequently travelled route. That will benefit the country.
The Liverpool to Paris comparison is more complicated. There isn’t a direct route, but if you change in London, there are numerous services throughout the day. There are greater challenges to a Liverpool to Paris route: namely, an international border and a sea being in the way. Still, the main reason such a route doesn’t exist is because the UK has been very slow to invest in high-speed rail services.
Your example of building a service is an investment, that is the sort of long-term structural reforms the state should be getting involved in for strategic planning.
Paying staff wages is not an investment, it is an operating expense.
The Japanese have done it right, they invest in the infrastructure while having the customers pay for the running costs. We spend decades debating any new infrastructure while politicians and unions argue over the running costs and customers get subsidised.
Our system is arse over tit. Invest in infrastructure, yes. Subsidise fares or pay staff wages, no. The state should be planning infrastructure improvements, but should have nothing to do with the RMT or fares.
Great, we are in some agreement. As we often are!
So, how do we get from here to there? (Do things differently decades ago is correct, but impractical.)
Until we’ve sorted ourselves out and made the appropriate investments in infrastructure and that has fed through in its effects — which will take a number of decades — what do we do? Because we didn’t make the investments, we have to support running costs. (Just as Japanese rail was state owned while all their investments were being made.)
1: Abolish all subsidies for rails that are at or close to capacity. These already have customers, they can pay.
2: For rails that are nowhere near capacity, find out why, do they need investment to make them usable, are they not required or wanted? Potentially subsidise quiet routes if they serve a strategic purpose.
3: Plan structural improvements like HS2 and commit the money to it, all branches of it. Where other investments are needed, make them. Connect HS1 and HS2 but outside of London (why does the interchange need to be in London?)
4: Are other connections required? Currently far too many routes just connect to London, all major cities should be linked strategically, London should not be a hub from which spokes come out.
5: Invest in motorways etc where required too.
6: Make it clear to customers and staff that they have a symbiotic relationship. Staff can only get paid if customers are present and happy. Customers must pay fair wages to staff to get the service they require. The state should not be involved in any industrial disputes, or fare rises, it should all be depoliticised.
Investment, yes. Wages, no. Wages are not investment, new track and tunnelling etc is.
Probably the only really useful imperial measurement (and it's not really imperial) is Fahrenheit for people's temperatures. Above 100F – fever. Below 100F – fine. Really easy to remember.
We already use imperial measures for many, many things in this country. As far as I know, it's no longer illegal to use them on market stalls or in butchers etc either and hasn't been for some time. Most retailers won't bother with them but as Richard says giving people more choice is hardly worth worrying about.
It's just another headline grabbing 'policy' that makes no difference (akin to the endless 'pubs will be allowed to open past 11pm for [insert holiday/sporting event here] when in fact they have been allowed to open past 11pm for more than 15 years!!)
Will they be allowed to refuse to use metric altogether under the new rules? If so, and the shop refuses to use metric, how does that provide the customer with more choice?
I don't know, and I don't think that it does. But why would a shop do that? I suspect most will use metric only or both – as they do now.
Yes, I can't imagine why a shop would do anything that might make it harder for consumers to compare prices and figure out if they are being ripped off...
In the good old days of "custom and practice" certain professions charged for 16 ounces and gave 14 ounces in the pound. Think of RN ship's pursers, who were originally commercial contractors rather than administrative officers.
I'm just thinking how many folk don't know even how many ounces there are in a pound ...
Comments
Interesting video here from ledbydonkeys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p-Ta83V7iw
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
a) It is an argument about a poll that although interesting is meaningless as we aren't rejoining and it wasn't a rejoining poll anyway just an expression of whether it was a mistake or not. We all make lots of mistakes that are irreversible and we just have to suck it up, which is what we should do and try to make the most of it in a positive way.
b) An argument on maths or logic with HYUFD is pointless full stop. He has the mathematical ability of a 5 - 7 year old (or as per an earlier discussion an African, something he claims to be a 'Fact' and which I am never going to let him forget).
I think we will join Schengen but not the Euro. A Euro opt out will be the one main concession we will get out of the negotiations.
However. Victoria Versa applies and ive lost faith the Tories will choke off the pooch.
High fuel prices are socially and environmentally beneficial anyway.
One of my co-workers was mentioning just yesterday how rubbish the need for people to have foodbanks, especially when they're working in jobs are. This isn't how society is supposed to operate.
Any lurking journos… this is how it’s done.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do not expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I don’t really see PMQs as a gladiator win lose thing. If you are doing the right thing it’s about planting seeds and building brick by brick for the future - like the PB conversation the other day learning in politics you don’t just pull a leaver and things happen, it’s about knowing that so working in the right way to move forward over time.
I absolutely appreciate how people bought popcorn ready for this PMQs, especially fellow travellers with the 148 who just want Boris Over asap - but when I put it to them, Labours new tactic of ignoring Boris, attacking thirteen years of Tory rule instead, presenting change of government as the change to want, nobody challenged that strategy and said it’s wrong.
I always play PMQs in how would I do it this week, how many questions, what questions, and Starmer did it just as I would have done - Boris has a tendency to have a “big calls right, getting things done” rant after Starmer’s last question, but Starmer changed the tone so much on his last one Boris couldn’t do his rant - it was more calculating clever than people are spinning it for sure.
A different future was possible, but hysteresis is for politics as well as physics, and I just don't see a path from where we are to where I want to be - Britain as much a confident and comfortable part of Europe as Derbyshire is part of England.
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
Why are the Japanese capable of running an efficient, subsidy-free rail system but we supposedly can't?
Doesn’t get much slippier or slimier than that
I’ll say it again, we won’t get beyond Brexit - or beyond the toxic debate around it - until that generation of politicians closely associated with it, on both sides, are booted out of office
The law is simply that metric must be used as a standard, and the use of any other measures is additional to metric.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
‘Abuse, assaults and big profits’ - children’s homes staff speak out’
This is just bullshit. Caring for vulnerable kids is a basic function of the state. If it’s going to be privatised, or done by charities, they need to be watched like a hawk by regulators.
The tories’ blind faith in the private sector - and cutting regulators budgets to a shoestring has caused real harm.
This is a man who was prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeremy Corbyn, serving in his Shadow Cabinet while all the antisemitism was happening and turning a total blind eye to it while decent folk in Labour were resigning to the backbenches or quitting the party. All because it would further his own career path. The moment that Corbyn had served his purpose, he was prepared to campaign on a pledge of uniting the party to get leadership votes then purge him from the party in order to again further his own career by suddenly seeing what he apparently never saw while in the Shadow Cabinet.
He has gone from we will respect the referendum and Brexit must happen, to there must be a second referendum and we will campaign to remain, to voting for Boris's deal and considering the matter closed.
He will say anything, screw over anyone, in order to further his own agenda. He's a not obese Boris Johnson in a smart fitting suit, minus the personality.
The pressure would have been internal, as well as external
The rest of us have a life
As such i expect them to bang that drum relentlessly into an election
Go jump in a lake in Brussels. No wonder you guys lost. You would lose again. The mask just keeps slipping
If you build it, they will come. The Japanese government chose to make a large investment, and the country benefits in terms of improved economy, less pollution and happier people!
So, it’s not a case of saying a service is not a frequently travelled route, so there shouldn’t be any trains on it. If you invest, it will become a frequently travelled route. That will benefit the country.
The Liverpool to Paris comparison is more complicated. There isn’t a direct route, but if you change in London, there are numerous services throughout the day. There are greater challenges to a Liverpool to Paris route: namely, an international border and a sea being in the way. Still, the main reason such a route doesn’t exist is because the UK has been very slow to invest in high-speed rail services.
Your post could have been said verbatim by a Scottish independence supporter who regards Britain as artificial and Britishness as an imposition. Both you and they are just choosing not to reconcile yourselves with the respective referendum results.
Also, people may not remember the specifics, but I bet they remember a vague iffiness surrounding Starmer, on the Brexit question. The wisdom of crowds is often intuitive
You have got to keep in mind, if Mike Smithson is right about how much the 2019 poll was keeping Corbyn out, there wasn’t much enthusiasm for electing either Boris or the Tories in the first place - the 350 seats a castle made of sand.
Starmer was a really bad choice as leader, for this reason
For Brexit supporters the sheer wilfulness of denying the nature of an EU with a parliament, political leadership, flag, currency, courts, central bank and overriding legal and legislative powers is still amazing. And it is still going on!
Because he was a shameful 2nd voter, he is desperate to talk about anything other than Brexit (see numerous interviews) and he won’t go near anything like the Single Market (tho he must want it personally, and he will come under pressure to pursue it). He knows that if he so much as mentions it, the Tories will remind everyone of his 2nd voteyness, and he won’t be able to defend himself. Because there is no defence
If Labour had chosen a leader who was more Leavey and less tarnished on Brexit, they could now honestly talk about EEA etc, and they would not suffer unduly. They would also gain millions of Remainer votes (from the LDs and SNP as well as the Tories)
To recover the wreckage we need somebody else...
“To further his own agenda”
What is his agenda? Surely the problem is that he doesn’t have one?
The Daily Mail will be furious
To what degree has this Boris era damaged the Tory brand for years to come?
Paying staff wages is not an investment, it is an operating expense.
The Japanese have done it right, they invest in the infrastructure while having the customers pay for the running costs. We spend decades debating any new infrastructure while politicians and unions argue over the running costs and customers get subsidised.
Our system is arse over tit. Invest in infrastructure, yes. Subsidise fares or pay staff wages, no. The state should be planning infrastructure improvements, but should have nothing to do with the RMT or fares.
The great danger to the opposition is that Boris uses his natural talent for campaigning, with his energy and chutzpah, to somehow bludgeon himself back into contention during an election campaign. Despite everything.
Faced with a pair of grey non-entities it's not inconceivable he may just do it. Stranger things have happened.
Remember Boris almost wilfully gets into scrapes. He just sees them as opportunities to demonstrate his feats of escapology.
Starmer cannot do this, as I say below, because he is crippled by his previous shameful behaviour over Brexit
Indeed, all the evidence is partygate 'ratnered' his personal brand and a new leader facing Starmer would have a good chance of a majority
He's like Boris, he's furthering his own career path, what he'll do when he gets there is anybody's guess.
But in 5, 10, 15, 20 years time, if Brexit is still perceived to be not delivering what most people, particularly Leavers, expected, it might be viewed as a doomed yet valiant attempt to give the British people a chance to vote on concrete, detailed proposals. To stare down the barrel of reality, perhaps, following the sugar rush of a referendum that, let's be honest, really didn't signpost us to where we are now.
Only time will tell.
There is little trust that the EU, especially Macron, wouldn’t use the first in a vindictive manner, and the second would be a political non-starter for many years to come.
If shops want to measure things in stones or perches or moon dust and add to their costs I don't care as long as they don't refuse to measure things in units that I can understand.
https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/consumer-protection/#imperial-indefinite
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Welcome to politics. You must be new here.
It's just another headline grabbing 'policy' that makes no difference (akin to the endless 'pubs will be allowed to open past 11pm for [insert holiday/sporting event here]' when in fact they have been allowed to open past 11pm for more than 15 years!!)
But no. There was a war
“In the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, the town came under aerial attack by the Russian Air Force from the outset of the conflict. Military targets and residential districts of Gori were hit by the airstrikes, resulting in civilian injuries and deaths.[7][8] Human Rights Watch (HRW) claimed that Russian forces had indiscriminately deployed cluster bombs in civilian areas around Gori. According to HRW, on August 12 Russian forces dropped cluster bombs in the center of Gori, killing 11 civilians and wounding dozens more.[9] Russian military officials deny using cluster munitions in the conflict, calling the HRW assertion "slanderous" and questioning the HRW's objectivity.[10] Numerous unexploded "bomblets" have been found by locals and HRW employees.[11]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gori,_Georgia
That's right the Northern Ireland Protocol. Another attempt possibly subverting international law to square a circle that can't be done. You almost wonder if some of these people WANT Brexit to fail and are acting as trojan horses?
So, how do we get from here to there? (Do things differently decades ago is correct, but impractical.)
Until we’ve sorted ourselves out and made the appropriate investments in infrastructure and that has fed through in its effects — which will take a number of decades — what do we do? Because we didn’t make the investments, we have to support running costs. (Just as Japanese rail was state owned while all their investments were being made.)
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-independence-referendum-go-ahead-27186680
An independence referendum will take place in Scotland by the end of next year, according to the SNP Constitution Secretary.
Angus Robertson was asked at the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee at Holyrood earlier today if he believed a vote would go ahead as planned for the end of 2023.
He replied: "Yes."
She's a Brexiteer. Bright and breezy with considerable oomph. Would give the grey knights a torrid time.
Obvs really.
If the pace of Western supplies of equipment and ammunition can be maintained or increased then I am confident Ukraine can prevail. However, that's a big ask, and supplies to Ukraine seem to be adhoc and piecemeal. They need more consistent supplies to replace losses and equip new units.
The tubs are sold in metric (400 or 800 grams) but the measuring spoon within is 1 scoop = 1 ounce.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-capitol-riots-and-the-plot-to-stop-brexit-have-in-common
2: For rails that are nowhere near capacity, find out why, do they need investment to make them usable, are they not required or wanted? Potentially subsidise quiet routes if they serve a strategic purpose.
3: Plan structural improvements like HS2 and commit the money to it, all branches of it. Where other investments are needed, make them. Connect HS1 and HS2 but outside of London (why does the interchange need to be in London?)
4: Are other connections required? Currently far too many routes just connect to London, all major cities should be linked strategically, London should not be a hub from which spokes come out.
5: Invest in motorways etc where required too.
6: Make it clear to customers and staff that they have a symbiotic relationship. Staff can only get paid if customers are present and happy. Customers must pay fair wages to staff to get the service they require. The state should not be involved in any industrial disputes, or fare rises, it should all be depoliticised.
Investment, yes. Wages, no. Wages are not investment, new track and tunnelling etc is.
I'm just thinking how many folk don't know even how many ounces there are in a pound ...