Indeed. And that is almost entirely due to her draconian covid policies (which she has since dropped, but clung on to them long after it was clear that they were a nonsense). She is mistress of her own downfall. But, she may yet recover in time for the next election, which is likely more than a year away.
As life moves on from Covid, National Party Christopher Luxon has got into a spot of bother over his proposed anti-gang legislation including the banning of gang insignia and preventing gang members from owning firearms.
It's a classic centre-right hard sounding but weak in detail plan full of holes and possible legal problems and while it's been predictably attacked from the centre-left, it's also been criticised by National's potential coalition rivals in the ACT who point out gang membership is not illegal per se but going after legitimate firearm owners who happen to be gang members is going too far.
Luxon has a long way to go to seal the deal with the New Zealand electorate for all his polling is far better than the hapless Judith Collins and with over a year until the next vote it'd be brave
to call the election.
I’m surprised that guns are legal to own in New Zealand. I didn’t realise that.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
Starmer is more Wilson or Callaghan than Blair and the Tories and Labour traded power in the 1960s and 1970s 4 times. The 1960s and 1970s were also a time of rising inflation and strikes, with a threatening Russia, much like now
I'm not sure the parallels work and history rarely operates that symmetrically. Assuming the Conservatives lose the next election, I cannot see Johnson remaining as LOTO through the next Parliament and before long your party will have a new leader.
The question then becomes one of direction and policy - you have said on here the Conservatives will move further "right" in Opposition - that didn't work well against Blair in all fairness but the "One Nation" ballast has been hollowed out by Johnson so whither (or wither) the party once out of power?
While the principles of conservatism remain, it's a question of how they can be practically applied to changing and evolving societies.
I was in Krivyy Rih recently, a hub for IDPs fleeing fm Kherson occupation. Council is providing services to 60,000 new IDPs. The UN, which started working in the city a month ago — yes, three months into conflict — has provided 40 beds. Forty. The Red Cross is still “assessing” https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1543188403172376578
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
Indeed. And that is almost entirely due to her draconian covid policies (which she has since dropped, but clung on to them long after it was clear that they were a nonsense). She is mistress of her own downfall. But, she may yet recover in time for the next election, which is likely more than a year away.
As life moves on from Covid, National Party Christopher Luxon has got into a spot of bother over his proposed anti-gang legislation including the banning of gang insignia and preventing gang members from owning firearms.
It's a classic centre-right hard sounding but weak in detail plan full of holes and possible legal problems and while it's been predictably attacked from the centre-left, it's also been criticised by National's potential coalition rivals in the ACT who point out gang membership is not illegal per se but going after legitimate firearm owners who happen to be gang members is going too far.
Luxon has a long way to go to seal the deal with the New Zealand electorate for all his polling is far better than the hapless Judith Collins and with over a year until the next vote it'd be brave
to call the election.
I’m surprised that guns are legal to own in New Zealand. I didn’t realise that.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I think you've got a thesis (the old have got politics in an armlock) which has some truth but you're running too far with it.
Perhaps I'm overdoing it. Time will tell. It's simply that the numbers don't lie: taking into account propensity to vote, a third of the active electorate is over 65 and a full half is over 55. The bulk of these people are outright homeowners or will have discharged their last mortgage within the next few years. On average, older voters are socially conservative, dislike change, the bulk of their lifetime savings is tied up in one asset (which they will both defend jealously and appreciate seeing continually rise in value,) and they expect to be able to pass the entirety of that asset onto their children.
The Conservative policy offer, which centres on having scrapped most death duties, introduced the pension triple lock, and (above all) custom rigging the housing market by proceeding with demand-side initiatives whilst dumping supply-side reform, is very appealing for the client vote. That doesn't encompass 100% of the elderly, but the ones who aren't owner-occupiers are largely poor and will probably vote Labour regardless, so the Government doesn't care about them.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
I agree entirely. I'm sure if Labour get in there will be calls to 'give the new govt a chance' Nahhhhhhh, balls to that, agitate early, agitate hard
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I think you've got a thesis (the old have got politics in an armlock) which has some truth but you're running too far with it.
Perhaps I'm overdoing it. Time will tell. It's simply that the numbers don't lie: taking into account propensity to vote, a third of the active electorate is over 65 and a full half is over 55. The bulk of these people are outright homeowners or will have discharged their last mortgage within the next few years. On average, older voters are socially conservative, dislike change, the bulk of their lifetime savings is tied up in one asset (which they will both defend jealously and appreciate seeing continually rise in value,) and they expect to be able to pass the entirety of that asset onto their children.
The Conservative policy offer, which centres on having scrapped most death duties, introduced the pension triple lock, and (above all) custom rigging the housing market by proceeding with demand-side initiatives whilst dumping supply-side reform, is very appealing for the client vote. That doesn't encompass 100% of the elderly, but the ones who aren't owner-occupiers are largely poor and will probably vote Labour regardless, so the Government doesn't care about them.
yes we are becoming more feudal by the day as a country - Its being done in a clever stealth way to give the tories some credit but it aint no meritocracy when your wealth depends on not what you have done in life but how big an inheritance you will get. Big pointy hats for ladies and jousting may come back in fashion soon
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
Brexit is effectively THE cultural issue in the UK
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
Starmer is more Wilson or Callaghan than Blair and the Tories and Labour traded power in the 1960s and 1970s 4 times. The 1960s and 1970s were also a time of rising inflation and strikes, with a threatening Russia, much like now
I'm not sure the parallels work and history rarely operates that symmetrically. Assuming the Conservatives lose the next election, I cannot see Johnson remaining as LOTO through the next Parliament and before long your party will have a new leader.
The question then becomes one of direction and policy - you have said on here the Conservatives will move further "right" in Opposition - that didn't work well against Blair in all fairness but the "One Nation" ballast has been hollowed out by Johnson so whither (or wither) the party once out of power?
While the principles of conservatism remain, it's a question of how they can be practically applied to changing and evolving societies.
Mind you it was not Heath who led the Party back to a sustained period of power in the 1970s but the more rightwing Thatcher
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I think you've got a thesis (the old have got politics in an armlock) which has some truth but you're running too far with it.
Perhaps I'm overdoing it. Time will tell. It's simply that the numbers don't lie: taking into account propensity to vote, a third of the active electorate is over 65 and a full half is over 55. The bulk of these people are outright homeowners or will have discharged their last mortgage within the next few years. On average, older voters are socially conservative, dislike change, the bulk of their lifetime savings is tied up in one asset (which they will both defend jealously and appreciate seeing continually rise in value,) and they expect to be able to pass the entirety of that asset onto their children.
The Conservative policy offer, which centres on having scrapped most death duties, introduced the pension triple lock, and (above all) custom rigging the housing market by proceeding with demand-side initiatives whilst dumping supply-side reform, is very appealing for the client vote. That doesn't encompass 100% of the elderly, but the ones who aren't owner-occupiers are largely poor and will probably vote Labour regardless, so the Government doesn't care about them.
yes we are becoming more feudal by the day as a country - Its being done in a clever stealth way to give the tories some credit but it aint no meritocracy when your wealth depends on not what you have done in life but how big an inheritance you will get. Big pointy hats for ladies and jousting may come back in fashion soon
An inheritance you increasingly get long after you are retired and, in most cases, don't actually need it.
Indeed. And that is almost entirely due to her draconian covid policies (which she has since dropped, but clung on to them long after it was clear that they were a nonsense). She is mistress of her own downfall. But, she may yet recover in time for the next election, which is likely more than a year away.
also the ridiculous anti smoking law which is peak government nannying.one I am sorry to say is seemingly gaining traction amongst the nannies in this country
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I think you've got a thesis (the old have got politics in an armlock) which has some truth but you're running too far with it.
Perhaps I'm overdoing it. Time will tell. It's simply that the numbers don't lie: taking into account propensity to vote, a third of the active electorate is over 65 and a full half is over 55. The bulk of these people are outright homeowners or will have discharged their last mortgage within the next few years. On average, older voters are socially conservative, dislike change, the bulk of their lifetime savings is tied up in one asset (which they will both defend jealously and appreciate seeing continually rise in value,) and they expect to be able to pass the entirety of that asset onto their children.
The Conservative policy offer, which centres on having scrapped most death duties, introduced the pension triple lock, and (above all) custom rigging the housing market by proceeding with demand-side initiatives whilst dumping supply-side reform, is very appealing for the client vote. That doesn't encompass 100% of the elderly, but the ones who aren't owner-occupiers are largely poor and will probably vote Labour regardless, so the Government doesn't care about them.
yes we are becoming more feudal by the day as a country - Its being done in a clever stealth way to give the tories some credit but it aint no meritocracy when your wealth depends on not what you have done in life but how big an inheritance you will get. Big pointy hats for ladies and jousting may come back in fashion soon
That isn't really true outside London and the Home counties where house prices are far cheaper and cost of living much lower
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
Instead of angry debates and Twitter pile ons, the public want a ‘live and let live’ approach to trans people and case-by-case solutions not blanket policies. Most are aware of the issues involved, a quarter know someone who is transgender, and for most the starting points are compassion and common sense. More agree (46%) than disagree (32%) that a trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman.
Beyond that- yes, a rainbow coalition is likely to be wobbly at best. The fact that that looks preferable to Johnson's Conservatives just goes to show what a complete mess he has made of things.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I think you've got a thesis (the old have got politics in an armlock) which has some truth but you're running too far with it.
Perhaps I'm overdoing it. Time will tell. It's simply that the numbers don't lie: taking into account propensity to vote, a third of the active electorate is over 65 and a full half is over 55. The bulk of these people are outright homeowners or will have discharged their last mortgage within the next few years. On average, older voters are socially conservative, dislike change, the bulk of their lifetime savings is tied up in one asset (which they will both defend jealously and appreciate seeing continually rise in value,) and they expect to be able to pass the entirety of that asset onto their children.
The Conservative policy offer, which centres on having scrapped most death duties, introduced the pension triple lock, and (above all) custom rigging the housing market by proceeding with demand-side initiatives whilst dumping supply-side reform, is very appealing for the client vote. That doesn't encompass 100% of the elderly, but the ones who aren't owner-occupiers are largely poor and will probably vote Labour regardless, so the Government doesn't care about them.
If Labour are in power after the next GE it would be in their interests to introduce online voting as an option. If they were really callous, they would make voting online only, thereby disenfranchising some of the elderly Tory voters.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
I am of the opinion "culture" issues become big news as a generation passes the torch to the next. Roughly every thirty years or so. Then we find a new consensus. Sixties, Nineties, Twenties. It's the death rattle of the old and birth pangs of the new. It's important right now.
Prince Charles honoured tycoon Lord Brownlow who bailed out his eco-village
Heir to the throne ignored aide’s advice against close ties with Tory peer
he Prince of Wales gave an honour to a controversial Tory peer who spent £1.7 million bailing out his failed eco-village in a string of secretive deals being investigated by the charity watchdog.
Prince Charles presented Lord Brownlow with the award during a ceremony at Buckingham Palace after accepting millions of pounds in donations from him.
His flagship charity also opened up Dumfries House, his 18th-century country estate in Scotland, for Brownlow’s 50th birthday — a black-tie event involving fireworks, bagpipes and a performance by a celebrity magician — and awarded the businessman’s company a £1.2 million construction contract....
...Charles became close with the peer, whose fortune has been estimated at £271 million by The Sunday Times Rich List in 2020, after ignoring the advice of one of his most senior courtiers. The palace insider was concerned Brownlow, 58, was using Charles to burnish his reputation, felt he had “myriad conflicts of interest” and believed his judgment was “wayward”. They shared their views with the prince.
God Almighty! Is there anyone left in public life who understands the concept of conflicts of interest and the importance of avoiding them, if at all possible?
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
Brexit is effectively THE cultural issue in the UK
I would like to disagree with you, but the opinion polls show that the differences in opinion between Brexiteers and Remainers are almost as stark as those between Democrats and Republicans. It’s not a hopeful sign for the future.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
I am of the opinion "culture" issues become big news as a generation passes the torch to the next. Roughly every thirty years or so. Then we find a new consensus. Sixties, Nineties, Twenties. It's the death rattle of the old and birth pangs of the new. It's important right now.
Sometimes can switch back the other way eg the Victorian era was more socially conservative than the Georgian era and Charles IInds reign
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
Taliban was somewhat different though.
How fundamentally? (no pun intended)
They were blown up. Not dismantled, so can't be replaced. They were from the 6th/7th Century, so very ancient, therefore of worldwide cultural significance. They were religious. So of completely different import. Latvia is a democracy. So their removal is subject to the electorate. They don't like it they can be replaced.
There is a further issue - some of the people represented in the Communist era statues in Latvia were personally responsible for the repression and murder of Latvians and the suppression of Latvia as a culture and a nation.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
Brexit is effectively THE cultural issue in the UK
I would like to disagree with you, but the opinion polls show that the differences in opinion between Brexiteers and Remainers are almost as stark as those between Democrats and Republicans. It’s not a hopeful sign for the future.
There is certainly a far bigger cultural divide between Brexiteers and Remainers than there was between Cameron’s Tories and Miliband's Labour before Brexit
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
Taliban was somewhat different though.
How fundamentally? (no pun intended)
They were blown up. Not dismantled, so can't be replaced. They were from the 6th/7th Century, so very ancient, therefore of worldwide cultural significance. They were religious. So of completely different import. Latvia is a democracy. So their removal is subject to the electorate. They don't like it they can be replaced.
There is a further issue - some of the people represented in the Communist era statues in Latvia were personally responsible for the repression and murder of Latvians and the suppression of Latvia as a culture and a nation.
Which is why the Latvian people are the best placed to decide.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
I am of the opinion "culture" issues become big news as a generation passes the torch to the next. Roughly every thirty years or so. Then we find a new consensus. Sixties, Nineties, Twenties. It's the death rattle of the old and birth pangs of the new. It's important right now.
Sometimes can switch back the other way eg the Victorian era was more socially conservative than the Georgian era and Charles IInds reign
Indeed it does. Don't reckon this is one though. Not in Europe anyways. Maybes fifties?
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
I am of the opinion "culture" issues become big news as a generation passes the torch to the next. Roughly every thirty years or so. Then we find a new consensus. Sixties, Nineties, Twenties. It's the death rattle of the old and birth pangs of the new. It's important right now.
Although in large parts of America it's looking more like the death rattle of the new and the birth pangs of the old.
Not that I’d want to enrage HFUYD on here and summon the tanks..
Poll in @SundayTimesScot: “On the question of whether or not they support independence, 48 per cent said they were in favour while 47 per cent were opposed. Five per cent said they did not know.”
..Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted her delight at the poll. But I can’t see how Scotland isn’t stuck in a cycle of despair if that continues. Even if a vote is held and won by yes, the division won’t end.
First Yes lead in quite a while - a mighty 1%. Surprised that she should "tweet her delight" at that TBH.
Well, she’s taken a punt on it, so I’d imagine she wants to encourage the base as well
Remember 2014. Quite an increase in Yes over the time of the campaign.
But there isn’t going to be a campaign
Which rather shows up your anti-democratic views. Never a good look, with a U-turn coming.
U-turn? Talk me through it. If the polls turn against the unionists they are even LESS likely to grant a vote. They will have everyone to lose and nothing to gain by yielding
However I really doubt the polls will shift. Anyone who has an opinion in Scotland is unlikely to change it in the next 18 months or so
"has an opinion" is the critical bit. There are plenty of DKs still.
But where is this u-turn coming, and how, and why?
The dilemma is that the later the unionists grant a vote the worse the result will be for them.
Allow a vote now (and tonight's poll is clear most Scots do not want an indyref2 next year) then even if Unionists win it again, the SNP would demand indyref3 within 5 years. After all they had no respect for 2014 being a once in a generation vote
Not surprising re the generation. Because it exists only in your imagination. You made it up - it's not in any paperwork.
The Scottish Government’s independence White Paper (Scotland’s Future, 26 November 2013): “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
It was the first time in my lifetime, never mind a generation, that I, and most Scots, had an opportunity to choose the future of our nation. Democracy will not be well served by denying Scots another opportunity to choose, having voted to do so.
I agree. Hence my comment at 9.23.
The trouble is with too frequent votes on it that the rest of the UK will assume one will go the Nats way and decide to tell the Scots they are not wanted anymore in a Union - Not much point in hanging on to a uncertain future with a partner in any walk of life
Sure, like any relationship repeated threats to walk out the door will eventually find the door being held open for you whether you want it or not.
But the majority of Scots who voted in the last election in Scotland were foolish enough to vote for parties committed to a second referendum. It was extremely close but they won. In a marriage of equals that should be respected, even if it means yet more economic damage and failure to address our multitude of problems once again.
We can only hope that after this people give it a rest for a while.
Perhaps we shouldn't talk so much of the UK as if it were a marriage? It's more like a flat share between several people who are either lukewarm towards, or actively dislike, one another, but haven't yet found anywhere better to go. That's not a perfect analogy either, but it's an improvement on likening the situation to a failing relationship: the entire thing is transactional and, to the extent that any of the parties involved will care about the end of the arrangement, it'll only be if it turns out to cost them some money.
Regardless, Scotland's conflicted feelings about staying or leaving won't be assuaged by a second decision to keep renting its room for the time being, any more than they were by the first.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
Brexit is effectively THE cultural issue in the UK
I would like to disagree with you, but the opinion polls show that the differences in opinion between Brexiteers and Remainers are almost as stark as those between Democrats and Republicans. It’s not a hopeful sign for the future.
There is certainly a far bigger cultural divide between Brexiteers and Remainers than there was between Cameron’s Tories and Miliband's Labour before Brexit
I wonder whether the cultural damage caused by Brexit will outlive the economic damage.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
I am of the opinion "culture" issues become big news as a generation passes the torch to the next. Roughly every thirty years or so. Then we find a new consensus. Sixties, Nineties, Twenties. It's the death rattle of the old and birth pangs of the new. It's important right now.
Although in large parts of America it's looking more like the death rattle of the new and the birth pangs of the old.
Depends on your view. Thesis/antithesis/synthesis. As @HYUFD points out, it isn't always one way.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I think you've got a thesis (the old have got politics in an armlock) which has some truth but you're running too far with it.
Perhaps I'm overdoing it. Time will tell. It's simply that the numbers don't lie: taking into account propensity to vote, a third of the active electorate is over 65 and a full half is over 55. The bulk of these people are outright homeowners or will have discharged their last mortgage within the next few years. On average, older voters are socially conservative, dislike change, the bulk of their lifetime savings is tied up in one asset (which they will both defend jealously and appreciate seeing continually rise in value,) and they expect to be able to pass the entirety of that asset onto their children.
The Conservative policy offer, which centres on having scrapped most death duties, introduced the pension triple lock, and (above all) custom rigging the housing market by proceeding with demand-side initiatives whilst dumping supply-side reform, is very appealing for the client vote. That doesn't encompass 100% of the elderly, but the ones who aren't owner-occupiers are largely poor and will probably vote Labour regardless, so the Government doesn't care about them.
If Labour are in power after the next GE it would be in their interests to introduce online voting as an option. If they were really callous, they would make voting online only, thereby disenfranchising some of the elderly Tory voters.
More likely to disenfranchise elderly Labour voters, and younger ones.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the
answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
“And on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.”
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
Instead of angry debates and Twitter pile ons, the public want a ‘live and let live’ approach to trans people and case-by-case solutions not blanket policies. Most are aware of the issues involved, a quarter know someone who is transgender, and for most the starting points are compassion and common sense. More agree (46%) than disagree (32%) that a trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman.
When those polled assume that “trans man” and “trans woman” refer to people who have taken hormones or had surgery or both, yes.
When the question specifies otherwise, the percentages are, IIRC, very much the other way around.
On topic: is this really a problem for No.10? There have now been so many scandals that you wonder if the public has reached saturation point and fails to notice any new ones.
I reckon that an organised vice ring of Tory MPs could be found to have been running an operation hawking rent boys and cocaine from the House of Commons tea room (and splitting the profits 50:50 with the Russian Embassy,) and the Conservative Party still wouldn't drop any further in the polls.
Sleaze is always baked in, I remember a pollster telling me what sticks in the mind of the public is hypocrisy and behaviour that is likely to see you signing the nonce jotter.
This'll have no further effect on the (in any case meaningless) VI polls, and the Conservatives will end up as at least the largest party at the next election. The only thing that'll change that will be an event that affects elderly incomes or inheritances - a hike in IHT, the abolition of the triple lock, or something that causes house prices to fall - and the Tories won't make those kinds of mistakes.
Don't know why you're so sure the Cons will be the largest party. The Lab lead feels quite robust to me.
An educated guess. They aren't going to slip below about 33% of the vote (John Major managed 31% in 1997, and the population has aged since then.) Labour isn't nearly as strong as it was in the 92-97 Parliament, Starmer doesn't look like Prime Minister in waiting or excite the same following as Blair did, Scotland certainly won't swing back to Labour in a big way, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding, I'm assuming some swingback to the Government, the current boundaries favour the Tories (and if they leave it until 2024 the revised ones are a bit better,) and in any case the age differentials in terms of party support and likelihood to vote are so great that you have to fancy the chances of the Grey Party in any general election.
My better half reckons that the Tories will actually win the next election with a reduced majority; I'm not at all certain of that, but I do think they're likely to end up with more seats than Labour for the reasons given above.
Have to get rid of Boris though. And soon enough that his replacement restores some sort of reputation to the party as well.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
I think you've got a thesis (the old have got politics in an armlock) which has some truth but you're running too far with it.
Perhaps I'm overdoing it. Time will tell. It's simply that the numbers don't lie: taking into account propensity to vote, a third of the active electorate is over 65 and a full half is over 55. The bulk of these people are outright homeowners or will have discharged their last mortgage within the next few years. On average, older voters are socially conservative, dislike change, the bulk of their lifetime savings is tied up in one asset (which they will both defend jealously and appreciate seeing continually rise in value,) and they expect to be able to pass the entirety of that asset onto their children.
The Conservative policy offer, which centres on having scrapped most death duties, introduced the pension triple lock, and (above all) custom rigging the housing market by proceeding with demand-side initiatives whilst dumping supply-side reform, is very appealing for the client vote. That doesn't encompass 100% of the elderly, but the ones who aren't owner-occupiers are largely poor and will probably vote Labour regardless, so the Government doesn't care about them.
If Labour are in power after the next GE it would be in their interests to introduce online voting as an option. If they were really callous, they would make voting online only, thereby disenfranchising some of the elderly Tory voters.
More likely to disenfranchise elderly Labour voters, and younger ones.
What’s the proportion of elderly Labour voters to elderly Tory voters?
Dunno. Is he? We did this earlier. Some excitable twitter Tories have convinced each other that Durham plod is about to issue an FPN but is waiting out of the goodness of its heart. Maybe they are right and we'll find out on Monday but it looks like a classic twitter self-reinforcing circlejerk.
I was astonished when he said he would resign if fined. He must have known that he might be fined on a technicality even if the event was broadly a work event.
Moral fibre at a level almost unknown for a politician, or biggest unforced error in years?
There is nothing problematic for Johnson that he can't just brush aside.
I've firmed up my list from January about the routes to Johnson ceasing to be Prime Minister. There are seven ways and they are (in no particular order):
1. A successful VONC by the Conservative Party against his leadership. 2. A successful VONC in the House of Commons against the Conservative government. 3. Defeat for the Conservative Party in a General Election. 4. A criminal sentence carrying a jail term of more than a year. 5. A recall petition followed by a by-election loss. 6. The Parliamentary Standards Committee finds against Johnson and either expels him, or suspends him from Parliament for such a long length of time that he is unable to conduct his duties in the House. 7. Death.
Looking at each in turn: 1) Has now been ruled out until June 2023 (absent a rule change) 2) Is extremely unlikely as it would require either a third of the Conservative Parliamentary Party to abstain, or a sixth to vote with the opposition. Neither is happening. 3) Is quite likely in the LONG term, but the next likely dates for a GE are May 2024 onwards (as late as January 2025), we've got a long wait to go yet. 4) Not really happening is it? 5) Neither is this. 6) Nor this. 7) I'm not going to comment on this.
If anyone thinks Johnson is going to be shamed into resigning, think again. That will never happen.
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
The room for manoeuvre for the country is rapidly diminishing too. At some point we won't be able to borrow as much as we are and it looks like the adjustment will be forced on us, rather than us being able to do it gradually over time.
No-one can say exactly when the music will stop, but it's going to come as an awful shock when it happens.
There is nothing problematic for Johnson that he can't just brush aside.
I've firmed up my list from January about the routes to Johnson ceasing to be Prime Minister. There are seven ways and they are (in no particular order):
1. A successful VONC by the Conservative Party against his leadership. 2. A successful VONC in the House of Commons against the Conservative government. 3. Defeat for the Conservative Party in a General Election. 4. A criminal sentence carrying a jail term of more than a year. 5. A recall petition followed by a by-election loss. 6. The Parliamentary Standards Committee finds against Johnson and either expels him, or suspends him from Parliament for such a long length of time that he is unable to conduct his duties in the House. 7. Death.
Looking at each in turn: 1) Has now been ruled out until June 2023 (absent a rule change) 2) Is extremely unlikely as it would require either a third of the Conservative Parliamentary Party to abstain, or a sixth to vote with the opposition. Neither is happening. 3) Is quite likely in the LONG term, but the next likely dates for a GE are May 2024 onwards (as late as January 2025), we've got a long wait to go yet. 4) Not really happening is it? 5) Neither is this. 6) Nor this. 7) I'm not going to comment on this.
If anyone thinks Johnson is going to be shamed into resigning, think again. That will never happen.
Well, that is the eighth, even if you think it unlikely. I reckon Boris intends to retire voluntarily at 60, like Harold Wilson, which will be in 2024. So that's nine ways. ETA the reason is to make a few million while he is still young enough to spend it, not shame.
I see Latvia is dismantling its communist punk style statues in response to Russia /Ukraine - Is this really necessary ? I have been to Riga and although no fan of the USSR or communism found them quite amazing and cultural . One gone they wont be coming back and that will be a shame all for the sake of a current bad action by Russia - We were all aghast at the Taleban blowing up statues but seem to tolerate it or want it now if we dont approve of something ourselves - all very sad
Taliban was somewhat different though.
How fundamentally? (no pun intended)
They were blown up. Not dismantled, so can't be replaced. They were from the 6th/7th Century, so very ancient, therefore of worldwide cultural significance. They were religious. So of completely different import. Latvia is a democracy. So their removal is subject to the electorate. They don't like it they can be replaced.
There is a further issue - some of the people represented in the Communist era statues in Latvia were personally responsible for the repression and murder of Latvians and the suppression of Latvia as a culture and a nation.
they didnt seem that fussed about them for 40 years or so
It'd be best for the country to be rid of him as soon as possible, simply because of his transparent awfulness and the corrosive effect this is having on the entire structure of the state, but I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Conservative Party.
Everyone by now appreciates that the Conservative Party has no plan for the country and no interest in devising one ("levelling up" is, of course, a hollow slogan backed with no substance whatsoever.) Its entire purpose is its own self-perpetuation, to be achieved by defending the interests of well-to-do old people and their expectant heirs. That's it.
Their weakness is that a change of leader is unlikely to materially alter these facts, or their appeal to voters outside of their favoured client groups. It is also their greatest strength. Literally anybody could take over from Boris Johnson as their leader and would still command at least a third of the popular vote, and probably a fair bit on top of that, at a general election.
The question becomes what will happen to the Conservative Party in Opposition?
Let's be honest - they were a dreadful, ineffective, useless Opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard from 1997 to 2005. They barely laid a glove on Blair and came close to being challenged for second place by the Lib Dems.
It took the election of David Cameron and a global financial crisis, the like of much we hadn't at the time seen for decades, to get them back into contention (aided and abetted by problems within both the Labour and LD parties).
It will be tempting for some on the centre-right to think all they have to do is wait for Labour to screw up but that was the line with Blair and not only did he fail to deliver (until Iraq which of course the Conservatives supported) but real problems such as the 2000 fuel crisis failed to have any impact. It may well be quiet and steady Government will be warmly welcomed after the May and Johnson years.
If quiet and steady government is what is provided of course. If its chaotic, pork barrel minority government with the Socialist group causing havoc and the LDs doing their 'look what a little influence does to us' trick......
Blair had numbers on his side, Starmer, or plank of equal value, will almost certainly not
Well. We've become inured to chaotic pork barrel majority government. So who knows?
True, true. I was more pointing out that the electoral maths wont likely support 'a period of quiet and steady' government. We will hopefully have fewer cock grabbing blow job nonce harassment porn twats though
I'm not sure "quiet and steady" government is actually possible whoever wins. Mainly because nobody has a clue what the answer to the major economic questions post GFC is. And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle. So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
The room for manoeuvre for the country is rapidly diminishing too. At some point we won't be able to borrow as much as we are and it looks like the adjustment will be forced on us, rather than us being able to do it gradually over time.
No-one can say exactly when the music will stop, but it's going to come as an awful shock when it happens.
Yes. It isn't great. The next election will be a nightmare to win. A bit of me hopes Penny Mordaunt wins it. Just to see the reaction when she turns out to be just as bewildered and clueless as every bugger else.
The personal politics for the Chief Constable ( and Durham Constabulary) were such that it was inevitable her decision to open the investigation under duress from Richard Holden, Ivo Delingpole, The Mail and the Telegraph had to result in a conviction. Her predecessor had said the investigation was a mistake, so a conviction vindicates her decision.
Apparently Boris, while studying Classics at Oxford, wrote to the Greek government supporting returning the Elgin marbles, and saying they had not been acquired legitimately.
The personal politics for the Chief Constable ( and Durham Constabulary) were such that it was inevitable her decision to open the investigation under duress from Richard Holden, Ivo Delingpole, The Mail and the Telegraph had to result in a conviction. Her predecessor had said the investigation was a mistake, so a conviction vindicates her decision.
This is all rumour so far and seems Skwaak Box started it.
Apparently Boris, while studying Classics at Oxford, wrote to the Greek government supporting returning the Elgin marbles, and saying they had not been acquired legitimately.
If he returned them to Elgin, would it help Douglas Ross’s re-election chances?
There is nothing problematic for Johnson that he can't just brush aside.
I've firmed up my list from January about the routes to Johnson ceasing to be Prime Minister. There are seven ways and they are (in no particular order):
1. A successful VONC by the Conservative Party against his leadership. 2. A successful VONC in the House of Commons against the Conservative government. 3. Defeat for the Conservative Party in a General Election. 4. A criminal sentence carrying a jail term of more than a year. 5. A recall petition followed by a by-election loss. 6. The Parliamentary Standards Committee finds against Johnson and either expels him, or suspends him from Parliament for such a long length of time that he is unable to conduct his duties in the House. 7. Death.
Looking at each in turn: 1) Has now been ruled out until June 2023 (absent a rule change) 2) Is extremely unlikely as it would require either a third of the Conservative Parliamentary Party to abstain, or a sixth to vote with the opposition. Neither is happening. 3) Is quite likely in the LONG term, but the next likely dates for a GE are May 2024 onwards (as late as January 2025), we've got a long wait to go yet. 4) Not really happening is it? 5) Neither is this. 6) Nor this. 7) I'm not going to comment on this.
If anyone thinks Johnson is going to be shamed into resigning, think again. That will never happen.
The personal politics for the Chief Constable ( and Durham Constabulary) were such that it was inevitable her decision to open the investigation under duress from Richard Holden, Ivo Delingpole, The Mail and the Telegraph had to result in a conviction. Her predecessor had said the investigation was a mistake, so a conviction vindicates her decision.
This is all rumour so far and seems Skwaak Box started it.
I stand by my analysis.
Another lesson learned by Starmer is cross Boris Johnson and the Brotherhood at one's peril.
The personal politics for the Chief Constable ( and Durham Constabulary) were such that it was inevitable her decision to open the investigation under duress from Richard Holden, Ivo Delingpole, The Mail and the Telegraph had to result in a conviction. Her predecessor had said the investigation was a mistake, so a conviction vindicates her decision.
This is all rumour so far and seems Skwaak Box started it.
I stand by my analysis.
Another lesson learned by Starmer is cross Boris Johnson and the Brotherhood at one's peril.
"Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him." - Max Haistings
Prince Charles honoured tycoon Lord Brownlow who bailed out his eco-village
Heir to the throne ignored aide’s advice against close ties with Tory peer
he Prince of Wales gave an honour to a controversial Tory peer who spent £1.7 million bailing out his failed eco-village in a string of secretive deals being investigated by the charity watchdog.
Prince Charles presented Lord Brownlow with the award during a ceremony at Buckingham Palace after accepting millions of pounds in donations from him.
His flagship charity also opened up Dumfries House, his 18th-century country estate in Scotland, for Brownlow’s 50th birthday — a black-tie event involving fireworks, bagpipes and a performance by a celebrity magician — and awarded the businessman’s company a £1.2 million construction contract....
...Charles became close with the peer, whose fortune has been estimated at £271 million by The Sunday Times Rich List in 2020, after ignoring the advice of one of his most senior courtiers. The palace insider was concerned Brownlow, 58, was using Charles to burnish his reputation, felt he had “myriad conflicts of interest” and believed his judgment was “wayward”. They shared their views with the prince.
God Almighty! Is there anyone left in public life who understands the concept of conflicts of interest and the importance of avoiding them, if at all possible?
Despite the number who might later claim ignorance as their defence, I expect most of them understand the concepts perfectly well. It's thinking it applies to them, a good person who of course no one could possibly think ill of, that is the problem.
Sachs actually says US lab biotechnology. Not quite same as came out of a US lab. But still.
It's been interesting (and rather disturbing) to learn in 2022 that the US has a network of such biotech labs, including in China (why?), doing a lot of frankly dangerous research.
A Ukrainian spokesperson on BBC Scotland the other week was mocking the accusation that 'we are creating birds with deadly diseases' - the Russians have alleged that a US-sponsored Ukrainian lab that it has shut down was experimenting with bird flu - and as coincidence would have it, there's a world pandemic of that too.
I think would appreciate it if the USA firstly didn't do this research, and secondly, if it must do it, do it somewhere like Washington DC.
There is nothing problematic for Johnson that he can't just brush aside.
I've firmed up my list from January about the routes to Johnson ceasing to be Prime Minister. There are seven ways and they are (in no particular order):
1. A successful VONC by the Conservative Party against his leadership. 2. A successful VONC in the House of Commons against the Conservative government. 3. Defeat for the Conservative Party in a General Election. 4. A criminal sentence carrying a jail term of more than a year. 5. A recall petition followed by a by-election loss. 6. The Parliamentary Standards Committee finds against Johnson and either expels him, or suspends him from Parliament for such a long length of time that he is unable to conduct his duties in the House. 7. Death.
Looking at each in turn: 1) Has now been ruled out until June 2023 (absent a rule change) 2) Is extremely unlikely as it would require either a third of the Conservative Parliamentary Party to abstain, or a sixth to vote with the opposition. Neither is happening. 3) Is quite likely in the LONG term, but the next likely dates for a GE are May 2024 onwards (as late as January 2025), we've got a long wait to go yet. 4) Not really happening is it? 5) Neither is this. 6) Nor this. 7) I'm not going to comment on this.
If anyone thinks Johnson is going to be shamed into resigning, think again. That will never happen.
"What the economy of the last decade did was bring an approximation of rock-star convenience to millions of people across several international cities. It democratised the kind of consumer-responsiveness (if not the free cocaine) that tends to do strange things to one’s ego.
And, for that matter, to one’s tolerance of stress. Allow me a digression into the psychology of white-collar bachelorhood. Because there is so little drag and friction in your life, you become hair-trigger sensitive to that which exists. And so a dawdler at a cash machine is an ordeal to stand behind. Each exposure to bureaucracy is as harrowing as what those bastards did to Josef K. Even a meandering or repetitive conversationalist is gently eased out of your life. (Look, the column isn’t called Nice Citizen of Nowhere.) You have none of the numbness that parents build up by losing whole hours to singing “The Wheels on the Bus”. The result is someone who is both hyper-social and antisocial. American Psycho was a caricature. But not that much of a caricature."
Comments
The question then becomes one of direction and policy - you have said on here the Conservatives will move further "right" in Opposition - that didn't work well against Blair in all fairness but the "One Nation" ballast has been hollowed out by Johnson so whither (or wither) the party once out of power?
While the principles of conservatism remain, it's a question of how they can be practically applied to changing and evolving societies.
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1543188403172376578
Thousands of community groups provide ‘virtually all’ humanitarian aid for conflict’s displaced, but have received just 0.24% of donations
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/01/the-informal-volunteer-groups-leading-ukraines-aid-effort
The Conservative policy offer, which centres on having scrapped most death duties, introduced the pension triple lock, and (above all) custom rigging the housing market by proceeding with demand-side initiatives whilst dumping supply-side reform, is very appealing for the client vote. That doesn't encompass 100% of the elderly, but the ones who aren't owner-occupiers are largely poor and will probably vote Labour regardless, so the Government doesn't care about them.
Mainly because nobody has a clue what the answer to the major economic questions post GFC is.
And, on cultural issues, the country is split down the middle.
So it will be turbulent. Even with another solid Tory majority.
I'm sure if Labour get in there will be calls to 'give the new govt a chance'
Nahhhhhhh, balls to that, agitate early, agitate hard
Big pointy hats for ladies and jousting may come back in fashion soon
Is it? I don’t think it is. There is a remarkable level of consensus on cultural issues in the UK, which is one of the most socially liberal, irreligious countries in the world.
Sure, there are a handful of high-profile fuckwits on both sides who are determined to create so-called ‘wedge issues’ and spark moronic culture wars. But that’s not the same thing.
Twit
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/
Instead of angry debates and Twitter pile ons, the public want a ‘live and let live’ approach to trans people and case-by-case solutions not blanket policies. Most are aware of the issues involved, a quarter know someone who is transgender, and for most the starting points are compassion and common sense. More agree (46%) than disagree (32%) that a trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman.
Beyond that- yes, a rainbow coalition is likely to be wobbly at best. The fact that that looks preferable to Johnson's Conservatives just goes to show what a complete mess he has made of things.
It's the death rattle of the old and birth pangs of the new.
It's important right now.
Don't reckon this is one though.
Not in Europe anyways.
Maybes fifties?
Regardless, Scotland's conflicted feelings about staying or leaving won't be assuaged by a second decision to keep renting its room for the time being, any more than they were by the first.
As @HYUFD points out, it isn't always one way.
When the question specifies otherwise, the percentages are, IIRC, very much the other way around.
Moral fibre at a level almost unknown for a politician, or biggest unforced error in years?
I've firmed up my list from January about the routes to Johnson ceasing to be Prime Minister. There are seven ways and they are (in no particular order):
1. A successful VONC by the Conservative Party against his leadership.
2. A successful VONC in the House of Commons against the Conservative government.
3. Defeat for the Conservative Party in a General Election.
4. A criminal sentence carrying a jail term of more than a year.
5. A recall petition followed by a by-election loss.
6. The Parliamentary Standards Committee finds against Johnson and either expels him, or suspends him from Parliament for such a long length of time that he is unable to conduct his duties in the House.
7. Death.
Looking at each in turn:
1) Has now been ruled out until June 2023 (absent a rule change)
2) Is extremely unlikely as it would require either a third of the Conservative Parliamentary Party to abstain, or a sixth to vote with the opposition. Neither is happening.
3) Is quite likely in the LONG term, but the next likely dates for a GE are May 2024 onwards (as late as January 2025), we've got a long wait to go yet.
4) Not really happening is it?
5) Neither is this.
6) Nor this.
7) I'm not going to comment on this.
If anyone thinks Johnson is going to be shamed into resigning, think again. That will never happen.
No-one can say exactly when the music will stop, but it's going to come as an awful shock when it happens.
A bit of me hopes Penny Mordaunt wins it.
Just to see the reaction when she turns out to be just as bewildered and clueless as every bugger else.
News to anyone who needs an Enhanced DBS to work then.
https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1542186421221466112
The Prime Minister last year rejected any attempt to return the sculptures to Greece, insisting they were legally acquired
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/02/boris-johnson-denounced-government-not-returning-elgin-marbles/
Apparently Boris, while studying Classics at Oxford, wrote to the Greek government supporting returning the Elgin marbles, and saying they had not been acquired legitimately.
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1543324314384080896
Inheritance tax and 'high inflation, low growth environment' lead thousands to quit UK
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/02/wealthy-families-flee-britain-tory-tax-raids-take-toll/ (£££)
Bloody Jeremy Corbyn.
Another lesson learned by Starmer is cross Boris Johnson and the Brotherhood at one's peril.
Aaron Bastani
@AaronBastani
·
1h
Nobody…
Absolutely nobody…
Jeffrey Sachs: “I'm pretty convinced Covid came out of a US biotech lab”.
Professor Sachs is a serious person saying this, not a crank. The NYT once called him “probably the most important economist in the world”.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1543343536623452162
===
Sachs actually says US lab biotechnology. Not quite same as came out of a US lab. But still.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUDEpqyJ-_w
A Ukrainian spokesperson on BBC Scotland the other week was mocking the accusation that 'we are creating birds with deadly diseases' - the Russians have alleged that a US-sponsored Ukrainian lab that it has shut down was experimenting with bird flu - and as coincidence would have it, there's a world pandemic of that too.
I think would appreciate it if the USA firstly didn't do this research, and secondly, if it must do it, do it somewhere like Washington DC.
The end of the frictionless life
The new delays and shortages might even be good for me
JANAN GANESH" [via G search]
https://www.ft.com/content/d4cd1138-7a81-4df0-a547-14969bb12346
And, for that matter, to one’s tolerance of stress. Allow me a digression into the psychology of white-collar bachelorhood. Because there is so little drag and friction in your life, you become hair-trigger sensitive to that which exists. And so a dawdler at a cash machine is an ordeal to stand behind. Each exposure to bureaucracy is as harrowing as what those bastards did to Josef K. Even a meandering or repetitive conversationalist is gently eased out of your life. (Look, the column isn’t called Nice Citizen of Nowhere.) You have none of the numbness that parents build up by losing whole hours to singing “The Wheels on the Bus”. The result is someone who is both hyper-social and antisocial. American Psycho was a caricature. But not that much of a caricature."