Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1727; 15-16 June 2022)
I thought Sarwar's attack at FMQs this week was absolutely spot on. After 15 years in government and 8 years as FM when are you going to stop behaving like the opposition and start behaving like a government? Scotland's fundamental problem summed up in a single sentence. It's a while since we have heard that sort of sharpness from any of the opposition parties in Scotland.
Hallelujah, a convert! What was your previous description of him, an empty suit?
Yes it was. He has surprised me, I freely admit it.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
There is a sort of enthusiasm for labelling everyone with a pseudo-medical/psychological diagnosis.
It is not a completely unhelpful thing to do, as getting a label of dyslexia or Aspbergers can unlock access to support to function better in society.
It can however just become an excuse to fail. "I cannot do that because I have X" etc.
The problem is not so much labelling itself, but rather the individual, their family, and societies reaction to that label. Do they make reasonable adjustments, or do they just reinforce the problem?
Positive covid test this morning - it's finally caught up with me. Feel like sh*t too.
Hey ho.
Rest and drink lots of water. Battling through it is really not the best plan.
Thanks David, I'll do that. Helped by the fact that Mrs P. has a bit of sympathy now that she's seen the test result she knows it's not just man flu.
She's off to buy me a tin of Heinz Tomato Soup - nowadays a terrible ultra-processed food, no doubt, but my childhood comfort blanket for every kind of minor sickness :-)
Tinned fruit and custard. It should be available on prescription.
Stovies, pickled beetroot and cold roast lamb for me.
Mince and tatties, with or without skirlie.
*hungry*
Tuna, eggs and grapefruit juice. Plus plenty of rest and sleep.
Folk who “work through” illness are either idiots or so poor they have no choice. It is catastrophic for body and mind in the long run.
Or live iin the USA and have already used up their 5 sick days for the year.
"Numbered Days Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that rules don’t apply to him will likely spell the end of his tenure as prime minister. Theodore Dalrymple"
"Numbered Days Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that rules don’t apply to him will likely spell the end of his tenure as prime minister. Theodore Dalrymple"
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
That is one problem with it.
But the main one is that, as Stonewall made clear way back in 2015 (in its submission to the Parliamentary Women's Committee), they want to abolish existing rights for women ie all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act and the replacement of sex by gender - which will make the fight against sexism, sex-based discrimination and claims for equal pay near impossible - and the abolition of the crime of rape by deception.
Whatever else it is a movement which seeks to abolish the existing rights of another group (one moreover which has suffered and continues to suffer discrimination and abuse in all sorts of ways) and to abolish a serious criminal offence is not a civil rights group.
It is rather more akin to what the anti-abortionists are doing in the US - seeking to abolish womens' rights because they believe another group's rights should override these and because they have a very particular - and limited - view of what women should be.
There are some surprising similarities between the mistakes the trans activists are making and those the world of finance made. See my article here - https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/.
I should add that this issue would not make me vote Tory (even if it might stop me me voting for other parties) so if the Tories think that culture war issues - whether this or Rwanda or the ECHR - will work, they are delusional.
The state of the economy and the degradation of our democracy and public life are what weigh heavily with me and for which the Tories deserve to be defeated, heavily if they do not get rid of Johnson sharpish.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
As I've said passim, as I get older I'm getting more liberalish. In the form of 'just let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt other people'.
There's also an acknowledgement that any dislikes I have might be *my* issue. For instance, as a kid I used to find tattoos distasteful. I didn't like them; I still don't. I don't know why. But aside from some egregious examples (tattoos over the face), I'm finding I'm more tolerant towards them. Getting a tattoo would not be *my* choice, but it's theirs. And I generally have no problem with that.
(I know someone with a brilliant set of tattoos. She had cancer, and every year, on the anniversary of getting the all-clear from cancer, she has another little star tattooed onto her arm.)
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
I agree with these various comments, but I'd add that opinion has shifted quite markedly in the last 30 years. Back then I was like lots of people in thinking civil partnerships were fine, gay marriage and gay adoption maybe a bit too provocative. Now I accept both as very sensible without a second's hesitation, as I think do most people in Britain.
By contrast, I had a Skype chat with a Boston Democrat activist, who said that she really would like Buttigieg as President but he did "push his gayness in our faces" by referring to his husband and wearing his ring. I said we'd pretty much accepted it in Britain and were now debating trans issues - she looked bewildered and said she couldn't even start to think about that. It felt as though they were a whole generation different.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
There is a sort of enthusiasm for labelling everyone with a pseudo-medical/psychological diagnosis.
It is not a completely unhelpful thing to do, as getting a label of dyslexia or Aspbergers can unlock access to support to function better in society.
It can however just become an excuse to fail. "I cannot do that because I have X" etc.
The problem is not so much labelling itself, but rather the individual, their family, and societies reaction to that label. Do they make reasonable adjustments, or do they just reinforce the problem?
Neuro-diverse is one I have heard recently and to be honest it makes a lot of sense to me as a useful label, because people with certain conditions do need certain adjustments, but can then function really well in a working environment... but if you don't make those adjustments, it's can be a bit of a disaster.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1727; 15-16 June 2022)
I thought Sarwar's attack at FMQs this week was absolutely spot on. After 15 years in government and 8 years as FM when are you going to stop behaving like the opposition and start behaving like a government? Scotland's fundamental problem summed up in a single sentence. It's a while since we have heard that sort of sharpness from any of the opposition parties in Scotland.
Hallelujah, a convert! What was your previous description of him, an empty suit?
Also surprises me. Ms Davidson? Half a dozen Slab leaders? And it also misses the key point - which is that the SNP is necessarily an opposition given the incomplete nature of devolution.
Mind blowing that SLab anti-SNP attack lines would appeal to a Tory Unionist. One might almost think that Anas had that in mind..
The corollary is that SLab did and still behave as if they're the legitimate party of government in Scotland temporarily out of power, and once the pesky SNP give back the voters they nicked off them, the natural order will be restored.
Positive covid test this morning - it's finally caught up with me. Feel like sh*t too.
Hey ho.
Rest and drink lots of water. Battling through it is really not the best plan.
Thanks David, I'll do that. Helped by the fact that Mrs P. has a bit of sympathy now that she's seen the test result she knows it's not just man flu.
She's off to buy me a tin of Heinz Tomato Soup - nowadays a terrible ultra-processed food, no doubt, but my childhood comfort blanket for every kind of minor sickness :-)
Tinned fruit and custard. It should be available on prescription.
Stovies, pickled beetroot and cold roast lamb for me.
Mince and tatties, with or without skirlie.
*hungry*
Tuna, eggs and grapefruit juice. Plus plenty of rest and sleep.
Folk who “work through” illness are either idiots or so poor they have no choice. It is catastrophic for body and mind in the long run.
Or live iin the USA and have already used up their 5 sick days for the year.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
The Cons fighting a 'culture war' election - aka pander to prejudice and softhead nostalgia in lieu of workable policies to improve people's lives - and winning would be so so depressing. Even just contemplating it is a serious downer.
So let's not! Let's go sunny side up to match the weather. If they do that and LOSE - esp if it's a thrashing - that will be a terrific outcome. That will be this country saying to them, "No, Tories, no. You have us all wrong. We're better than you think. So piss off now and don't even think about pulling this shit again."
"sunny"
Not here it isn't - it's pissing down (but nice and cool, and it beats watering the garden as well as helping refill the reservoirs)
Oh. Well here it's hot hot hot. But not too hot. It's pretty perfect. The sort of day when you just can't be brooding about Trump2 or the Tories winning culture war elections or Putin succeeding in partitioning Ukraine or Britain becoming a Bad Boy country that breaks the law at will, ships its refugees to Africa, and can't be arsed with minority rights, or anything of that nature.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
As I've said passim, as I get older I'm getting more liberalish. In the form of 'just let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt other people'.
There's also an acknowledgement that any dislikes I have might be *my* issue. For instance, as a kid I used to find tattoos distasteful. I didn't like them; I still don't. I don't know why. But aside from some egregious examples (tattoos over the face), I'm finding I'm more tolerant towards them. Getting a tattoo would not be *my* choice, but it's theirs. And I generally have no problem with that.
(I know someone with a brilliant set of tattoos. She had cancer, and every year, on the anniversary of getting the all-clear from cancer, she has another little star tattooed onto her arm.)
Tattoos are a great example of something which was very niche and carried a whole bunch of stigma. Which has gradually become mainstream. I don't like them either. Voluntary pain isn't my thing.
100 for Salt in reasonable time. Malan burning up a lot of deliveries with Buttler, Morgan, Livingstone and Moeen to come but still about a run a ball.
Positive covid test this morning - it's finally caught up with me. Feel like sh*t too.
Hey ho.
Rest and drink lots of water. Battling through it is really not the best plan.
Thanks David, I'll do that. Helped by the fact that Mrs P. has a bit of sympathy now that she's seen the test result she knows it's not just man flu.
She's off to buy me a tin of Heinz Tomato Soup - nowadays a terrible ultra-processed food, no doubt, but my childhood comfort blanket for every kind of minor sickness :-)
Tinned fruit and custard. It should be available on prescription.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
Positive covid test this morning - it's finally caught up with me. Feel like sh*t too.
Hey ho.
Rest and drink lots of water. Battling through it is really not the best plan.
Thanks David, I'll do that. Helped by the fact that Mrs P. has a bit of sympathy now that she's seen the test result she knows it's not just man flu.
She's off to buy me a tin of Heinz Tomato Soup - nowadays a terrible ultra-processed food, no doubt, but my childhood comfort blanket for every kind of minor sickness :-)
Tinned fruit and custard. It should be available on prescription.
100 for Salt in reasonable time. Malan burning up a lot of deliveries with Buttler, Morgan, Livingstone and Moeen to come but still about a run a ball.
Rishi Sunak Approval Rating in Scotland (15 June):
Approve: 26% Disapprove: 46% Net: -20%
What’s the rating by party?
My guess is that SNP supporters as a group have a high disapproval rating for all English politicians regardless of party.
If that is the case then It says something about the SNP supporters rather than the politicians
My guess is 'Scottish' Douglas Ross would rank lower than Rishi with supporters of all parties not SCon. Maybe SCons too..
I like the way PBTories like to claim that being anti-Tory in Scotland, or more generally to be against having your poility and its policies overridden by a different polity, must be anti-English racism when it would be just the same as if it were the Vogons in power in No. 10.
The Tories tried claiming that once, back in I think November 2013 - you could tell it was delbierate because it was rolled out across all the media in the orchestrated way that they had. They reverse ferreted very quickly indeed, because someone must have realised the implicit claim which they were making about themselves.
I didn’t claim that. I asked a question.
I suspect if you controlled for a percentage (certainly not all) of anti-English racists in the SNP then approval levels for English politicians of all parties would be similar to in England. Because Scotland and England are not that different.
It’s interesting though that none of the SNP types have engaged with the question but have whinged instead
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
I agree with these various comments, but I'd add that opinion has shifted quite markedly in the last 30 years. Back then I was like lots of people in thinking civil partnerships were fine, gay marriage and gay adoption maybe a bit too provocative. Now I accept both as very sensible without a second's hesitation, as I think do most people in Britain.
By contrast, I had a Skype chat with a Boston Democrat activist, who said that she really would like Buttigieg as President but he did "push his gayness in our faces" by referring to his husband and wearing his ring. I said we'd pretty much accepted it in Britain and were now debating trans issues - she looked bewildered and said she couldn't even start to think about that. It felt as though they were a whole generation different.
I was at High School in Georgia for 5 years, and have been back and forth since a number of times. One thing that strikes me most about America is the social conformity exerted by heavy peer pressure, much more so than here. There is some variation due to social sortition so that there are a variety of communities, but each has its own peer pressures.
The Calvinist philosophy of the Pilgrim Father's may have set the tone, but that must be very heavily diluted now by waves of immigration from very different societies. I suspect that it is in part the American immigrant experience, that once they have left the old world for the new, they abandon their old culture for the new, in a way that we do not enforce here.
I think Buttigeig would be a good candidate, but there will be a level of homophobic vitriol against him that we wouldn't see here. Perhaps just British hypocrisy, but even homophobic or racist people are reticent to be as blatant about their views than many Americans.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
You'd like to see a "fuck the climate" offering from one of the main parties?
100 for Salt in reasonable time. Malan burning up a lot of deliveries with Buttler, Morgan, Livingstone and Moeen to come but still about a run a ball.
Where's Johan Cruyff when the Dutch need him?
No longer eligible on account of being dead. For 6 years now, believe it or not.
Positive covid test this morning - it's finally caught up with me. Feel like sh*t too.
Hey ho.
Rest and drink lots of water. Battling through it is really not the best plan.
Thanks David, I'll do that. Helped by the fact that Mrs P. has a bit of sympathy now that she's seen the test result she knows it's not just man flu.
She's off to buy me a tin of Heinz Tomato Soup - nowadays a terrible ultra-processed food, no doubt, but my childhood comfort blanket for every kind of minor sickness :-)
Tinned fruit and custard. It should be available on prescription.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That's an interesting point and can be blamed almost entirely on Boris. For years he made a career of putting the world to rights and giving the impression that any problem could be solved by flatulent rhetoric and flippant, vapid theorizing. Millions were taken in. Alas, that approach is now utterly discredited - Brexit, of course, being the prime example. Politicians are now grimly aware that no one is now taken in by the prospect of 'sunlit uplands', which is actually probably quite healthily in the long term. People have had enough of journalists.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
You'd like to see a "fuck the climate" offering from one of the main parties?
Nope, but I reckon the electorate might warm to 'you can keep your boiler as long as you like, we're fracking for cheap gas and hydrocarbon powered cars won't be banned.'
And not just here. America in November.
Meanwhile, what the UK does or doesn't do is completely irrelevant to whether the climate gets f8cked. That's in the hands of China, India and the US.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that might appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That's an interesting point and can be blamed almost entirely on Boris. For years he made a career of putting the world to rights and giving the impression that any problem could be solved by flatulent rhetoric and flippant, vapid theorizing. Millions were taken in. Alas, that approach is now utterly discredited - Brexit, of course, being the prime example. Politicians are now grimly aware that no one is now taken in by the prospect of 'sunlit uplands', which is actually probably quite healthily in the long term. People have had enough of journalists.
The electorate are not taken in by 'sunlit uplands', true, but that does not mean they take kindly to messages like 'get used to being poorer' and 'those crickets actually taste quite nice'
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
You'd like to see a "fuck the climate" offering from one of the main parties?
Nope, but I reckon the electorate might warm to 'you can keep your boiler as long as you like, we're fracking for cheap gas and hydrocarbon powered cars won't be banned.'
And not just here. America in November.
meanwhile, what the UK does or doesn't do is completely irrelevant to whether the climate gets f8cked. That's in the hands of China, India and the US.
The simplest way to cut inflation and reduce fuel prices would be to shaft Ukraine and end sanctions on Russia.
I don't know how popular that would be, but by winter it may not be an insignificant minority.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
I agree with these various comments, but I'd add that opinion has shifted quite markedly in the last 30 years. Back then I was like lots of people in thinking civil partnerships were fine, gay marriage and gay adoption maybe a bit too provocative. Now I accept both as very sensible without a second's hesitation, as I think do most people in Britain.
(Snip)
This is where my idea of small-c conservatism plays out. Conservative does not mean never changing (or it should not); it means being cautious about change.
If any government had tried to bring in laws to have the gay rights we enjoy now in one big swoop, it would not have passed. Small evolutionary changes allow bigger changes to happen; evolution rather than revolution.
In 1994 Edwina Currie introduced a bill to change the age of consent for homosexuality form 21 to 16, equalising it with opposite-sex couples. It failed, but the age was reduced to 18. Five or six years later it was finally equalised.
Another example are female bishops. I remember the massive controversy about allowing female clergy in the CofE. Some people were bashing the bishops and proclaiming it would be the end of the church. A small change was made and the doubters were pretty much disproven. Then another change was made (I forgot what), and the doubters again wrong. We're now at the stage where we can have female bishops without complaint.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
100 for Salt in reasonable time. Malan burning up a lot of deliveries with Buttler, Morgan, Livingstone and Moeen to come but still about a run a ball.
Where's Johan Cruyff when the Dutch need him?
No longer eligible on account of being dead. For 6 years now, believe it or not.
Rishi Sunak Approval Rating in Scotland (15 June):
Approve: 26% Disapprove: 46% Net: -20%
What’s the rating by party?
My guess is that SNP supporters as a group have a high disapproval rating for all English politicians regardless of party.
If that is the case then It says something about the SNP supporters rather than the politicians
My guess is 'Scottish' Douglas Ross would rank lower than Rishi with supporters of all parties not SCon. Maybe SCons too..
I like the way PBTories like to claim that being anti-Tory in Scotland, or more generally to be against having your poility and its policies overridden by a different polity, must be anti-English racism when it would be just the same as if it were the Vogons in power in No. 10.
The Tories tried claiming that once, back in I think November 2013 - you could tell it was delbierate because it was rolled out across all the media in the orchestrated way that they had. They reverse ferreted very quickly indeed, because someone must have realised the implicit claim which they were making about themselves.
I didn’t claim that. I asked a question.
I suspect if you controlled for a percentage (certainly not all) of anti-English racists in the SNP then approval levels for English politicians of all parties would be similar to in England. Because Scotland and England are not that different.
It’s interesting though that none of the SNP types have engaged with the question but have whinged instead
No source to probe further. But look at the numbers. And there are rather a lot of English-born members in the SNP, you do realise?
PS Also
'Scotrland and England not that different'
Assuming Slab are lefties and SLD are right wing - the total ration of L to R parties is massively different. 20-25% right wing, and that includes SLD and a generous dollop of RefUK, Orange Unionist, etc.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
You'd like to see a "fuck the climate" offering from one of the main parties?
Nope, but I reckon the electorate might warm to 'you can keep your boiler as long as you like, we're fracking for cheap gas and hydrocarbon powered cars won't be banned.'
And not just here. America in November.
meanwhile, what the UK does or doesn't do is completely irrelevant to whether the climate gets f8cked. That's in the hands of China, India and the US.
The simplest way to cut inflation and reduce fuel prices would be to shaft Ukraine and end sanctions on Russia.
I don't know how popular that would be, but by winter it may not be an insignificant minority.
Or develop alternative sources. Its not as if we are short of available gas. Faced with a hard target of Net Zero by 2050, our government cannot bring itself to do that.
For Labour to form the next government, it has to overcome two major obstacles:
a) the "Starmer is a really boring London lawyer" obstacle. b) the complete policy vacuum obstacle - what is Labour for?
As it happens, I'm more confident that they'll solve b) than that they'll solve a). I expect Labour policy makers to come up with enough eye-catching, but not threatening, proposals to attract public interest and some enthusiasm. They're not daft, and nor are they daft enough to announce such policies in time for the Tories to nick them. Patience is a virtue. But the idea that Labour would go into a GE with nothing much to say is a bit ludicrous. As for a), one just hopes that someone manages to sprinkle of bit of magic dust on Starmer.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
As I've said passim, as I get older I'm getting more liberalish. In the form of 'just let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt other people'.
There's also an acknowledgement that any dislikes I have might be *my* issue. For instance, as a kid I used to find tattoos distasteful. I didn't like them; I still don't. I don't know why. But aside from some egregious examples (tattoos over the face), I'm finding I'm more tolerant towards them. Getting a tattoo would not be *my* choice, but it's theirs. And I generally have no problem with that.
(I know someone with a brilliant set of tattoos. She had cancer, and every year, on the anniversary of getting the all-clear from cancer, she has another little star tattooed onto her arm.)
Tattoos are a great example of something which was very niche and carried a whole bunch of stigma. Which has gradually become mainstream. I don't like them either. Voluntary pain isn't my thing.
Here's a prediction: tattoos will eventually go out of fashion, because everything does, and when that happens all the people who've decided to have tattoos will demand that the NHS removes them free of charge.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
As I've said passim, as I get older I'm getting more liberalish. In the form of 'just let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt other people'.
There's also an acknowledgement that any dislikes I have might be *my* issue. For instance, as a kid I used to find tattoos distasteful. I didn't like them; I still don't. I don't know why. But aside from some egregious examples (tattoos over the face), I'm finding I'm more tolerant towards them. Getting a tattoo would not be *my* choice, but it's theirs. And I generally have no problem with that.
(I know someone with a brilliant set of tattoos. She had cancer, and every year, on the anniversary of getting the all-clear from cancer, she has another little star tattooed onto her arm.)
Tattoos are a great example of something which was very niche and carried a whole bunch of stigma. Which has gradually become mainstream. I don't like them either. Voluntary pain isn't my thing.
Here's a prediction: tattoos will eventually go out of fashion, because everything does, and when that happens all the people who've decided to have tattoos will demand that the NHS removes them free of charge.
Rishi Sunak Approval Rating in Scotland (15 June):
Approve: 26% Disapprove: 46% Net: -20%
What’s the rating by party?
My guess is that SNP supporters as a group have a high disapproval rating for all English politicians regardless of party.
If that is the case then It says something about the SNP supporters rather than the politicians
My guess is 'Scottish' Douglas Ross would rank lower than Rishi with supporters of all parties not SCon. Maybe SCons too..
I like the way PBTories like to claim that being anti-Tory in Scotland, or more generally to be against having your poility and its policies overridden by a different polity, must be anti-English racism when it would be just the same as if it were the Vogons in power in No. 10.
The Tories tried claiming that once, back in I think November 2013 - you could tell it was delbierate because it was rolled out across all the media in the orchestrated way that they had. They reverse ferreted very quickly indeed, because someone must have realised the implicit claim which they were making about themselves.
I didn’t claim that. I asked a question.
I suspect if you controlled for a percentage (certainly not all) of anti-English racists in the SNP then approval levels for English politicians of all parties would be similar to in England. Because Scotland and England are not that different.
It’s interesting though that none of the SNP types have engaged with the question but have whinged instead
No source to probe further. But look at the numbers. And there are rather a lot of English-born members in the SNP, you do realise?
PS Also
'Scotrland and England not that different'
Assuming Slab are lefties and SLD are right wing - the total ration of L to R parties is massively different. 20-25% right wing, and that includes SLD and a generous dollop of RefUK, Orange Unionist, etc.
They are very similar. The party that prioritises the interests of Scotland and the Scots over the rest of the UK is the most popular in Scotland, while the party that prioritises England and the English over the rest of the UK is the more popular in England.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the SNP is an anti-English racist party, or even majority so, but it does have a significant number of such members and supporters, Mr Dickson of this parish, and formerly Mr Malc also.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
Yes, the Tory party has retreated to offering nothing but fear.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
As I've said passim, as I get older I'm getting more liberalish. In the form of 'just let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt other people'.
There's also an acknowledgement that any dislikes I have might be *my* issue. For instance, as a kid I used to find tattoos distasteful. I didn't like them; I still don't. I don't know why. But aside from some egregious examples (tattoos over the face), I'm finding I'm more tolerant towards them. Getting a tattoo would not be *my* choice, but it's theirs. And I generally have no problem with that.
(I know someone with a brilliant set of tattoos. She had cancer, and every year, on the anniversary of getting the all-clear from cancer, she has another little star tattooed onto her arm.)
Tattoos are a great example of something which was very niche and carried a whole bunch of stigma. Which has gradually become mainstream. I don't like them either. Voluntary pain isn't my thing.
Here's a prediction: tattoos will eventually go out of fashion, because everything does, and when that happens all the people who've decided to have tattoos will demand that the NHS removes them free of charge.
Here's a prediction. All the people who've decided to have tattoos won't demand the NHS removes them free of charge. However the Daily Mail will run a story about the one person who does.
Rishi Sunak Approval Rating in Scotland (15 June):
Approve: 26% Disapprove: 46% Net: -20%
What’s the rating by party?
My guess is that SNP supporters as a group have a high disapproval rating for all English politicians regardless of party.
If that is the case then It says something about the SNP supporters rather than the politicians
My guess is 'Scottish' Douglas Ross would rank lower than Rishi with supporters of all parties not SCon. Maybe SCons too..
I like the way PBTories like to claim that being anti-Tory in Scotland, or more generally to be against having your poility and its policies overridden by a different polity, must be anti-English racism when it would be just the same as if it were the Vogons in power in No. 10.
The Tories tried claiming that once, back in I think November 2013 - you could tell it was delbierate because it was rolled out across all the media in the orchestrated way that they had. They reverse ferreted very quickly indeed, because someone must have realised the implicit claim which they were making about themselves.
I didn’t claim that. I asked a question.
I suspect if you controlled for a percentage (certainly not all) of anti-English racists in the SNP then approval levels for English politicians of all parties would be similar to in England. Because Scotland and England are not that different.
It’s interesting though that none of the SNP types have engaged with the question but have whinged instead
No source to probe further. But look at the numbers. And there are rather a lot of English-born members in the SNP, you do realise?
PS Also
'Scotrland and England not that different'
Assuming Slab are lefties and SLD are right wing - the total ration of L to R parties is massively different. 20-25% right wing, and that includes SLD and a generous dollop of RefUK, Orange Unionist, etc.
They are very similar. The party that prioritises the interests of Scotland and the Scots over the rest of the UK is the most popular in Scotland, while the party that prioritises England and the English over the rest of the UK is the more popular in England.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the SNP is an anti-English racist party, or even majority so, but it does have a significant number of such members and supporters, Mr Dickson of this parish, and formerly Mr Malc also.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
You'd like to see a "fuck the climate" offering from one of the main parties?
Nope, but I reckon the electorate might warm to 'you can keep your boiler as long as you like, we're fracking for cheap gas and hydrocarbon powered cars won't be banned.'
And not just here. America in November.
meanwhile, what the UK does or doesn't do is completely irrelevant to whether the climate gets f8cked. That's in the hands of China, India and the US.
The simplest way to cut inflation and reduce fuel prices would be to shaft Ukraine and end sanctions on Russia.
I don't know how popular that would be, but by winter it may not be an insignificant minority.
The longer the war drags on, the more & more likely we end up at :
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
Yes, the Tory party has retreated to offering nothing but fear.
@Benpointer get better soon. Best of healing vibes.
The idea of a General Election this year is fanciful nonsense. It would be mass suicide: the Conservative Party equivalent of Jonestown.
If Johnson tried it then the party would eject him as leader in minutes.
They probably know that after this winter's heating bills, and sustained prices above £2 per litre at the pump, they will be out of power for a generation. Plus inflation is going nowhere, and rising interest rates are going to crash the housing market. So better to go to the polls now.
If they announced a substantial cut / total suspension of fuel duty in August, election in September and won a majority of just 1, they would look like geniuses compared to going to the polls in 2023.
It's 1997 in reverse. Instead of "things can only get better" it's "things can only get worse."
^this. The economy is *fucked*. Like once in a generation 1970s fucked. There is no happy ending for any government who has to carry the can through those events, especially when the government is on boostervision and simply denies there is a problem.
We are rapidly approaching the political tipping point. Two major and one minor factors to consider: BREXIT: People swinging into the "this is shit" camp. But still persuadable that its shit only because remoaners / judges / lefties / the EU are to blame. They won't get away with that line of argument in 2024 ECONOMY: Fucked. Going to get more fucked before there is any recovery and all I can see is downside in terms of the economic hardships that will need to be endured afterwards CULTURE: The minor factor. There is only so long they can stoke division with fear of lady cock and forrin refugees. Rwanda is a wedge issue, so make maximum use of it before it becomes clear the policy won't work and was never going to work.
Interesting study. I am boringly in the majority on this. Interesting too that sport was seen as a legitimate exception even by people favouring inclusion by other means.
This was quite telling too:
"the report emphasised that people did not primarily see these issues “through a narrow lens of gender identity”, with discussion broadening out to the fact most people do not like communal changing rooms per se, while the minority who were less comfortable with unisex bathrooms were more worried that men tend to be less hygienic than women in communal toilets, rather than about safety."
And more generally, would that we had a government more interested in practical solutions than cultural conflict.
Ditto the radical Trans activists.
I think like many other issues, such as race and female equality, or gay marriage cultural change and acceptance takes time.
My problem with a lot of Trans politics is that it is heavily influenced by rather outdated gender stereotypes of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
As time goes on and society develops, it is becoming more complex. People are no longer just 'straight'; people can (openly) be gay, bisexual, asexual and a gamut of others options. It is no longer the case that the men work whilst their wives look after the children; roles can be shared or swapped. In fact, unmarried couples with kids are far from unusual, along with single mums etc.
It is not jut the fact that things have changed from the 'traditional' (in fact, often it is that they've just become more visible). It's the fact things have become much more complex, and people can no longer be easily pigeonholed.
People don't like the complexity, but they will get used to it.
I think its part of a modern obsession to have to label people according to every personality trait or health condition they have - I am not sure its healthy and people should be as they want to be or are without somebody else (society) getting obsessive about labelling them (even in no malicious intent) .We see it in the ludicrous LGBTQ++% that seems to expand every year. Perhaps more seriously we see it where anyone (especially young people) who is good at maths , a bit socially nervous or shy or is a bit obsessive about a hobby gets labelled as "on the spectrum" . When I hear somebody discuss somebody else as that (just because they dont act the "norm" ) I just feel like saying "oh just F off"
As I've said passim, as I get older I'm getting more liberalish. In the form of 'just let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt other people'.
There's also an acknowledgement that any dislikes I have might be *my* issue. For instance, as a kid I used to find tattoos distasteful. I didn't like them; I still don't. I don't know why. But aside from some egregious examples (tattoos over the face), I'm finding I'm more tolerant towards them. Getting a tattoo would not be *my* choice, but it's theirs. And I generally have no problem with that.
(I know someone with a brilliant set of tattoos. She had cancer, and every year, on the anniversary of getting the all-clear from cancer, she has another little star tattooed onto her arm.)
Tattoos are a great example of something which was very niche and carried a whole bunch of stigma. Which has gradually become mainstream. I don't like them either. Voluntary pain isn't my thing.
Here's a prediction: tattoos will eventually go out of fashion, because everything does, and when that happens all the people who've decided to have tattoos will demand that the NHS removes them free of charge.
Here's a prediction. All the people who've decided to have tattoos won't demand the NHS removes them free of charge. However the Daily Mail will run a story about the one person who does.
But by then the Daily Mail will be read by people with tattoos.
"Trust in BBC News has fallen 20 percentage points in the last five years, from 75% to 55%. Equally telling is the proportion who say they distrust the BBC, which has grown from 11% to 26% (see next chart). The majority of these are from the political right, echoing criticism from Boris Johnson’s government about an alleged anti-Brexit and liberal bias, but we also find that low trust in the BBC also comes from those who are less interested in news altogether.
It is important to note that other big brands in the UK (e.g. the Guardian and the Mail) have been affected by growing levels of distrust, though not as severely. Declining trust is a particular challenge for public media organisations, as they try to fulfil their mission to appeal to all audiences."
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric cars among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
For Labour to form the next government, it has to overcome two major obstacles:
a) the "Starmer is a really boring London lawyer" obstacle. b) the complete policy vacuum obstacle - what is Labour for?
As it happens, I'm more confident that they'll solve b) than that they'll solve a). I expect Labour policy makers to come up with enough eye-catching, but not threatening, proposals to attract public interest and some enthusiasm. They're not daft, and nor are they daft enough to announce such policies in time for the Tories to nick them. Patience is a virtue. But the idea that Labour would go into a GE with nothing much to say is a bit ludicrous. As for a), one just hopes that someone manages to sprinkle of bit of magic dust on Starmer.
It may not need magic dust as such. Boring can be done well and memorably with enough imagination by those around him. The quirks of boringness are sellable.
The donkey funeral story was very good. May and the wheat field John Major in the back of the car "oh, there it is, there it is"
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
The Daily Mail would love it. Especially if it was mooted for welfare recipients, trans activists, and lefty lawyers.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
Sure, the rich are the first adopters, but the crossover point of buying an EV, or of Leasing one compared to IC fueled version is not far away, particularly considering the lower running costs.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric cars among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
In my local town the only place that has a public electric car charger is the Waitrose car park.
For Labour to form the next government, it has to overcome two major obstacles:
a) the "Starmer is a really boring London lawyer" obstacle. b) the complete policy vacuum obstacle - what is Labour for?
As it happens, I'm more confident that they'll solve b) than that they'll solve a). I expect Labour policy makers to come up with enough eye-catching, but not threatening, proposals to attract public interest and some enthusiasm. They're not daft, and nor are they daft enough to announce such policies in time for the Tories to nick them. Patience is a virtue. But the idea that Labour would go into a GE with nothing much to say is a bit ludicrous. As for a), one just hopes that someone manages to sprinkle of bit of magic dust on Starmer.
I expect Labour's manifesto to be vanilla ice cream, but nice up-market vanilla ice cream from a farm shop, with some sprinkles or maybe honey sauce or something like that. Still vanilla, but good vanilla.
I also expect the Conservative manifesto to be a turd spray painted gold, but they'll lie and tell us it's gold-leaf on the turd.
For Labour to form the next government, it has to overcome two major obstacles:
a) the "Starmer is a really boring London lawyer" obstacle. b) the complete policy vacuum obstacle - what is Labour for?
As it happens, I'm more confident that they'll solve b) than that they'll solve a). I expect Labour policy makers to come up with enough eye-catching, but not threatening, proposals to attract public interest and some enthusiasm. They're not daft, and nor are they daft enough to announce such policies in time for the Tories to nick them. Patience is a virtue. But the idea that Labour would go into a GE with nothing much to say is a bit ludicrous. As for a), one just hopes that someone manages to sprinkle of bit of magic dust on Starmer.
It may not need magic dust as such. Boring can be done well and memorably with enough imagination by those around him. The quirks of boringness are sellable.
The donkey funeral story was very good. May and the wheat field John Major in the back of the car "oh, there it is, there it is"
And 'Not Flash, Just Gordon' was the chosen slogan early on in Brown's tenure. Labour would have been wise to stick with that approach. It all started going wrong for Gordon when he started looking like a smart arse - the election that never was, the trillion dollar man etc.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric cars among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
In my local town the only place that has a public electric car charger is the Waitrose car park.
Seems a bit on the low side, but perhaps it's a small place?
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
This is 50% true (I find the car makers’ obsession with expensive electric SUVs deeply annoying). I wanted to go electric this time round but got a super efficient petrol due to the cost of new EVs. The other half is rot.
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric cars among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
In my local town the only place that has a public electric car charger is the Waitrose car park.
Really? When I look at Google maps it shows lots of chargepoints in North Notts.
For Labour to form the next government, it has to overcome two major obstacles:
a) the "Starmer is a really boring London lawyer" obstacle. b) the complete policy vacuum obstacle - what is Labour for?
As it happens, I'm more confident that they'll solve b) than that they'll solve a). I expect Labour policy makers to come up with enough eye-catching, but not threatening, proposals to attract public interest and some enthusiasm. They're not daft, and nor are they daft enough to announce such policies in time for the Tories to nick them. Patience is a virtue. But the idea that Labour would go into a GE with nothing much to say is a bit ludicrous. As for a), one just hopes that someone manages to sprinkle of bit of magic dust on Starmer.
At the moment Labour needs to provide a vision of what a Labour government would do. There should be one or two key measures which should be memorable to sell to the electorate.
Policies to support and enhance that vision can come within say six months of the election - so start of 2024.
For Labour to form the next government, it has to overcome two major obstacles:
a) the "Starmer is a really boring London lawyer" obstacle. b) the complete policy vacuum obstacle - what is Labour for?
As it happens, I'm more confident that they'll solve b) than that they'll solve a). I expect Labour policy makers to come up with enough eye-catching, but not threatening, proposals to attract public interest and some enthusiasm. They're not daft, and nor are they daft enough to announce such policies in time for the Tories to nick them. Patience is a virtue. But the idea that Labour would go into a GE with nothing much to say is a bit ludicrous. As for a), one just hopes that someone manages to sprinkle of bit of magic dust on Starmer.
It may not need magic dust as such. Boring can be done well and memorably with enough imagination by those around him. The quirks of boringness are sellable.
The donkey funeral story was very good. May and the wheat field John Major in the back of the car "oh, there it is, there it is"
The Labour advert should be an empty newspaper with “Peace and Quiet: Vote Labour 202x”
The Good Week/Bad Week Index (GWBWI) is designed to remove partiality from analysing council by-election results. By using figures for the council balance, each party's strength, and history in the ward, we can produce a numerical value how 'important' a ward is to each party. Combining this with the results of the election, we can calculate a numerical value for how well each party has done.
Council By-Elections, 16/6/22
GWBWI
Lab +109 Con +92 LDm +34 Grn -7
The Adjusted Seat Value (ASV) is calculated by dividing the GWBWI by the base value of a seat to the defending party. Based on historical by-elections, this base value is assessed as 60.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric cars among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
In my local town the only place that has a public electric car charger is the Waitrose car park.
Really? When I look at Google maps it shows lots of chargepoints in North Notts.
Did I give the impression I live in North Notts sometime? That wasn't me.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric cars among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
In my local town the only place that has a public electric car charger is the Waitrose car park.
Seems a bit on the low side, but perhaps it's a small place?
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric cars among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
In my local town the only place that has a public electric car charger is the Waitrose car park.
Seems a bit on the low side, but perhaps it's a small place?
Around 30,000 people.
Not too small. Although I don't think this is a barrier to EV ownership in such places, as many people will have their own driveway from which they can charge.
The Good Week/Bad Week Index (GWBWI) is designed to remove partiality from analysing council by-election results. By using figures for the council balance, each party's strength, and history in the ward, we can produce a numerical value how 'important' a ward is to each party. Combining this with the results of the election, we can calculate a numerical value for how well each party has done.
Council By-Elections, 16/6/22
GWBWI
Lab +109 Con +92 LDm +34 Grn -7
The Adjusted Seat Value (ASV) is calculated by dividing the GWBWI by the base value of a seat to the defending party. Based on historical by-elections, this base value is assessed as 60.
ASV
Lab: +1.82 Con: +1.53 LDm: +0.57 Grn: -0.12
It’s Jim Doyle’s GloopyWoopy algorithm!
This is what we have been waiting for a bit of perspective on yesterdays raw vote and seat changes.
The Good Week/Bad Week Index (GWBWI) is designed to remove partiality from analysing council by-election results. By using figures for the council balance, each party's strength, and history in the ward, we can produce a numerical value how 'important' a ward is to each party. Combining this with the results of the election, we can calculate a numerical value for how well each party has done.
Council By-Elections, 16/6/22
GWBWI
Lab +109 Con +92 LDm +34 Grn -7
The Adjusted Seat Value (ASV) is calculated by dividing the GWBWI by the base value of a seat to the defending party. Based on historical by-elections, this base value is assessed as 60.
ASV
Lab: +1.82 Con: +1.53 LDm: +0.57 Grn: -0.12
It’s Jim Doyle’s GloopyWoopy algorithm!
This is what we have been waiting for a bit of perspective on yesterdays raw vote and seat changes.
Fantastic! 👍🏻
And it seems to perfectly back up Slades “on the night” summoning up “is that it. Boring week.” 😆
Comments
It is not a completely unhelpful thing to do, as getting a label of dyslexia or Aspbergers can unlock access to support to function better in society.
It can however just become an excuse to fail. "I cannot do that because I have X" etc.
The problem is not so much labelling itself, but rather the individual, their family, and societies reaction to that label. Do they make reasonable adjustments, or do they just reinforce the problem?
I will give the official verdict in 3 days.
(Burrrrrrpppp)
Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that rules don’t apply to him will likely spell the end of his tenure as prime minister.
Theodore Dalrymple"
https://www.city-journal.org/boris-johnsons-days-are-numbered
But the main one is that, as Stonewall made clear way back in 2015 (in its submission to the Parliamentary Women's Committee), they want to abolish existing rights for women ie all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act and the replacement of sex by gender - which will make the fight against sexism, sex-based discrimination and claims for equal pay near impossible - and the abolition of the crime of rape by deception.
Whatever else it is a movement which seeks to abolish the existing rights of another group (one moreover which has suffered and continues to suffer discrimination and abuse in all sorts of ways) and to abolish a serious criminal offence is not a civil rights group.
It is rather more akin to what the anti-abortionists are doing in the US - seeking to abolish womens' rights because they believe another group's rights should override these and because they have a very particular - and limited - view of what women should be.
There are some surprising similarities between the mistakes the trans activists are making and those the world of finance made. See my article here - https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/.
I should add that this issue would not make me vote Tory (even if it might stop me me voting for other parties) so if the Tories think that culture war issues - whether this or Rwanda or the ECHR - will work, they are delusional.
The state of the economy and the degradation of our democracy and public life are what weigh heavily with me and for which the Tories deserve to be defeated, heavily if they do not get rid of Johnson sharpish.
There's also an acknowledgement that any dislikes I have might be *my* issue. For instance, as a kid I used to find tattoos distasteful. I didn't like them; I still don't. I don't know why. But aside from some egregious examples (tattoos over the face), I'm finding I'm more tolerant towards them. Getting a tattoo would not be *my* choice, but it's theirs. And I generally have no problem with that.
(I know someone with a brilliant set of tattoos. She had cancer, and every year, on the anniversary of getting the all-clear from cancer, she has another little star tattooed onto her arm.)
By contrast, I had a Skype chat with a Boston Democrat activist, who said that she really would like Buttigieg as President but he did "push his gayness in our faces" by referring to his husband and wearing his ring. I said we'd pretty much accepted it in Britain and were now debating trans issues - she looked bewildered and said she couldn't even start to think about that. It felt as though they were a whole generation different.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
NEW: Boris Johnson has cancelled a Wakefield by-election campaign visit and Q&A with Northern Tories today.
Sounds like the order came down from the top last night - CCHQ and No10 people are baffled.
Today had been marked out in the No10 grid as "LEADERSHIP".
Because he'd get booed
The corollary is that SLab did and still behave as if they're the legitimate party of government in Scotland temporarily out of power, and once the pesky SNP give back the voters they nicked off them, the natural order will be restored.
https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1537749858035040259
But the fact that you feel the need to question someone’s identity speaks volumes about you
I don't like them either. Voluntary pain isn't my thing.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
Get your grammar sorted out, specify whose identity I'm questioning and I'll give it a bash.
Edit: unfortunataley you'll have to take it as read that I assume that anyone doing the 'says more about you' stuff is a twat.
I suspect if you controlled for a percentage (certainly not all) of anti-English racists in the SNP then approval levels for English politicians of all parties would be similar to in England. Because Scotland and England are not that different.
It’s interesting though that none of the SNP types have engaged with the question but have whinged instead
The Calvinist philosophy of the Pilgrim Father's may have set the tone, but that must be very heavily diluted now by waves of immigration from very different societies. I suspect that it is in part the American immigrant experience, that once they have left the old world for the new, they abandon their old culture for the new, in a way that we do not enforce here.
I think Buttigeig would be a good candidate, but there will be a level of homophobic vitriol against him that we wouldn't see here. Perhaps just British hypocrisy, but even homophobic or racist people are reticent to be as blatant about their views than many Americans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxWyAtA7-OY
And not just here. America in November.
Meanwhile, what the UK does or doesn't do is completely irrelevant to whether the climate gets f8cked. That's in the hands of China, India and the US.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that might appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
I don't know how popular that would be, but by winter it may not be an insignificant minority.
If any government had tried to bring in laws to have the gay rights we enjoy now in one big swoop, it would not have passed. Small evolutionary changes allow bigger changes to happen; evolution rather than revolution.
In 1994 Edwina Currie introduced a bill to change the age of consent for homosexuality form 21 to 16, equalising it with opposite-sex couples. It failed, but the age was reduced to 18. Five or six years later it was finally equalised.
Another example are female bishops. I remember the massive controversy about allowing female clergy in the CofE. Some people were bashing the bishops and proclaiming it would be the end of the church. A small change was made and the doubters were pretty much disproven. Then another change was made (I forgot what), and the doubters again wrong. We're now at the stage where we can have female bishops without complaint.
Small steps often work better than grand changes.
LAB: 48.9% (+14.4)
LDEM: 28.1% (-1.3)
CON: 16.9% (-0.6)
GRN: 5.0% (-7.2)
UKIP: 1.1% (-5.2)
Votes cast: 2,176
Labour HOLD.
BJO won't post this one
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/17/grenfell-emma-dent-coad-death-threats-ptsd-kensington-labour-mp
CON: 45.2% (+25.4)
LAB: 35.9% (+16.1)
LDEM: 19.0% (+9.2)
No Health Concern (-30.1), UKIP (-10.6) and Grn (-10.0) as prev.
Votes cast: 1,829
Conservative GAIN from Health Concern.
PS Also
'Scotrland and England not that different'
Assuming Slab are lefties and SLD are right wing - the total ration of L to R parties is massively different. 20-25% right wing, and that includes SLD and a generous dollop of RefUK, Orange Unionist, etc.
a) the "Starmer is a really boring London lawyer" obstacle.
b) the complete policy vacuum obstacle - what is Labour for?
As it happens, I'm more confident that they'll solve b) than that they'll solve a).
I expect Labour policy makers to come up with enough eye-catching, but not threatening, proposals to attract public interest and some enthusiasm. They're not daft, and nor are they daft enough to announce such policies in time for the Tories to nick them. Patience is a virtue. But the idea that Labour would go into a GE with nothing much to say is a bit ludicrous.
As for a), one just hopes that someone manages to sprinkle of bit of magic dust on Starmer.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the SNP is an anti-English racist party, or even majority so, but it does have a significant number of such members and supporters, Mr Dickson of this parish, and formerly Mr Malc also.
https://twitter.com/AngryScotland/status/842023902834524160?s=20&t=MKSve0cX3DcOl78kQncWyQ
"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
It'd be good to think that the war's over by then though, with Russia out of all of Ukraine. Eurovision could be a real celebration then.
It is important to note that other big brands in the UK (e.g. the Guardian and the Mail) have been affected by growing levels of distrust, though not as severely. Declining trust is a particular challenge for public media organisations, as they try to fulfil their mission to appeal to all audiences."
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/dnr-executive-summary
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
The Eurovision news is great, but surely it should be held in Bradford, as UK’s Capital of Culture?
The donkey funeral story was very good.
May and the wheat field
John Major in the back of the car "oh, there it is, there it is"
Especially if it was mooted for welfare recipients, trans activists, and lefty lawyers.
I also expect the Conservative manifesto to be a turd spray painted gold, but they'll lie and tell us it's gold-leaf on the turd.
I'm sure I've posted this before but this is great for anyone wanting a dramatisation of the Blair/Brown deal.
And I say again, anyone ever heard Attlee speak?
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
Policies to support and enhance that vision can come within say six months of the election - so start of 2024.
Council By-Elections, 16/6/22
GWBWI
Lab +109
Con +92
LDm +34
Grn -7
The Adjusted Seat Value (ASV) is calculated by dividing the GWBWI by the base value of a seat to the defending party. Based on historical by-elections, this base value is assessed as 60.
ASV
Lab: +1.82
Con: +1.53
LDm: +0.57
Grn: -0.12
This is what we have been waiting for a bit of perspective on yesterdays raw vote and seat changes.
Fantastic! 👍🏻
https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-britains-nazi-loving-press-baron-made-the-case-for-hitler/