Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
It's fucking shit is what it is. Revolution betrayed.
Labour isn’t a revolutionary or communist party, however much you’d like it to be. So if they’re betraying anything, it isn’t the Revolution.
No issue with your first sentence. It’s naff and cynical. Might work, though.
Might work? In?
Airdrie and Shotts Coatbridge and Bellshill West Dunbartonshire East Lothian Coast Edinburgh East Edinburgh North and Leith West Fife Glasgow Central Glasgow East Glasgow North Glasgow South Glasgow South West Glasgow West Hamilton and Clyde Valley Inverclyde and Bridge of Weir Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath Midlothian Motherwell and Clydesdale North Na h-Eileanan an Iar Rutherglen
How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!
What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?
If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.
That sort of communication device is valuable
People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound. Equally, you could have listened to Truss at a Party rally and realised what direction she was heading.
People take currency bets because they take economic views and these people did just that it seems. They in so doing also showed governments their actions have real world consequences. Whether good or bad we of course funny know yet although we do know (@rcs1000) that ceteris is never particularly paribus.
People like @Foxy misunderestimate how it all works.
I have effectively been shorting the pound for some time, shifting my equities into companies based overseas or earning overseas.
No insider knowledge needed, as the decline of Sterling was nailed on.
Worth remembering it's the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The late Queen was its patron. What does King Charles III make of his government's attacks on wildlife habitats and the environment generally?
And HMtK is patron of the NT.
Her Majesty Jackie taking over at NTS. Neil Oliver’s boots will take some filling, mind.
Not quite sure why she has the gig - no obvious background, has she? Though OTOH she did do the NTS podcasts during lockdown. So she must have developed the needful interest and enthusiasm, and also some knowledge of it all. And I suppose they have got used to the idea of some BBC person fronting.
Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson. It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.
Oh come on. Any government that doesn't have Nadine Dorries as a Secretary of State has to be a step up.
Not so fast on that one, Mr L. Take a look at the quality of the people she has put into the top three posts..... Stupid, irresponsible, and dictatorial, wouldn't you say?
Have you seen this from the Mail on Sunday?
"Kwasinomics is much more easily explained. He has essentially walked into the bank, and secured a loan against the full value of his house. Then he’s entered the nearest casino, and placed the entire amount on a single spin of the roulette wheel. If it comes up red, he will be rich beyond his dreams. If it doesn’t, he will be broke. And, more pertinently, so will Britain."
There are also reports of their friends in the banking community speculating against the pound. Of course, they would be. It is almost as though it had been set up for them.
Cameron, Osborne and Johnson were famous for having been members of the Bullingdon Club at Oxford, which specialised in visiting restaurants and trashing them. The present lot of Conservative are doing the same to the country.
Is there nobody left in the Conservative Party with any sense of decency, dignity and self-respect, who can stand up against this?
How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!
What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?
If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.
That sort of communication device is valuable
People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound. Equally, you could have listened to Truss at a Party rally and realised what direction she was heading.
People take currency bets because they take economic views and these people did just that it seems. They in so doing also showed governments their actions have real world consequences. Whether good or bad we of course funny know yet although we do know (@rcs1000) that ceteris is never particularly paribus.
People like @Foxy misunderestimate how it all works.
What happens this week is far more important than what happened on Friday. The weekend will have given investors and analysts the time to think. If the pound does not recover - at least against non-dollar currencies - then the narrative is going to be pretty well set and very difficult to counter.
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.
On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.
Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.
OTOH no harm in having a patriotic and QE2-commemorating bit at the start, with photos, when he's doing his beginning thing: doesn't look as if it will be there all the time. Ticks it off the list and avoids the Tories attacking him if he doesn't, and plastering the late Her Maj all over their conference.
Agree. I don't see any downside. Winds up a few ultra-lefties, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and draws a very clear line between Starmer and the Thornberry tweet.
The Rochester flag one? All of 8 years ago?
Well, a line between Starmer and that kind of patronising stuff Labour used to come out with. There is a reason he's been going to pretty much every England game.
He is a genuine football fan, and played regularly himself.
How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!
What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?
If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.
That sort of communication device is valuable
People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound. Equally, you could have listened to Truss at a Party rally and realised what direction she was heading.
People take currency bets because they take economic views and these people did just that it seems. They in so doing also showed governments their actions have real world consequences. Whether good or bad we of course funny know yet although we do know (@rcs1000) that ceteris is never particularly paribus.
People like @Foxy misunderestimate how it all works.
Sterling is fundamentally weak for a variety of reasons.
We have been running a trade deficit of substantial proportions for nearly 30 years continuously. This means that there is always more pounds in the hands of foreigners than actually want them. It also means in cumulo that it is becoming increasingly impossible for us to fix this because so many of our wealth producing assets have already been sold. In the first couple of quarters this deficit reached record levels. The idea that we have been enduring some sort of "austerity" is actually bizarre. We have been continuously living beyond our means, recklessly so.
WW3 hasn't happened yet because it cannot work out where to start, Ukraine or Taiwan. The uncertainty makes the dollar stronger.
We have a muppet in the BoE who seems indifferent to the differential between our interest rates and the US rates or the consequential inflationary push of a weak currency.
Given these 3 prevailing hurricanes it really doesn't take more than a gentle zephyr to bring another round of selling forward.
It's paywalled for me, but I note the headline does confirm that they think they're far-right. It's partly the hesitant way they handle the direct descent from the fascists, partly their reckless use of anti-migrant demogoguery. Nowadays far-right is about social issues more than economic policy.
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
It's fucking shit is what it is. Revolution betrayed.
Labour isn’t a revolutionary or communist party, however much you’d like it to be. So if they’re betraying anything, it isn’t the Revolution.
No issue with your first sentence. It’s naff and cynical. Might work, though.
Might work? In?
Airdrie and Shotts Coatbridge and Bellshill West Dunbartonshire East Lothian Coast Edinburgh East Edinburgh North and Leith West Fife Glasgow Central Glasgow East Glasgow North Glasgow South Glasgow South West Glasgow West Hamilton and Clyde Valley Inverclyde and Bridge of Weir Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath Midlothian Motherwell and Clydesdale North Na h-Eileanan an Iar Rutherglen
??
Forgive my scepticism.
I doubt it will make a difference one way or the other in many parts of the UK. It’s the effect at the margin in the bits it does. Anyway, you don’t have a vote.
There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.
That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.
He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.
I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.
Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.
I agree about Miliband, but Starmer is just as opportunist - he has just ditched the whole programme he was elected on because he thinks doing so will be popular, and he stuck around in Corbyn's cainbet for years, being the author of their opportunistic, cynical and ineffective Brexit policy. We won't know what he'll be like until (if) he is elected and has to take these decisions, of course, but I can easily see him sticking it to the Ukrainians or some other foreign people if it helped him control the Labour Party or got him a couple of extra points in the opinion polls.
Is he any more opportunist than Truss, who has just shredded the manifesto that she'd got elected on?
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
It's fucking shit is what it is. Revolution betrayed.
Labour isn’t a revolutionary or communist party, however much you’d like it to be. So if they’re betraying anything, it isn’t the Revolution.
No issue with your first sentence. It’s naff and cynical. Might work, though.
Might work? In?
Airdrie and Shotts Coatbridge and Bellshill West Dunbartonshire East Lothian Coast Edinburgh East Edinburgh North and Leith West Fife Glasgow Central Glasgow East Glasgow North Glasgow South Glasgow South West Glasgow West Hamilton and Clyde Valley Inverclyde and Bridge of Weir Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath Midlothian Motherwell and Clydesdale North Na h-Eileanan an Iar Rutherglen
??
Forgive my scepticism.
I doubt it will make a difference one way or the other in many parts of the UK. It’s the effect at the margin in the bits it does. Anyway, you don’t have a vote.
Niether, effectively, do a lot of us in the UK under FPTP. And it does depend how long SD has been absent. He may well still have a vote in the UK.
How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!
What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?
If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.
That sort of communication device is valuable
People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound. Equally, you could have listened to Truss at a Party rally and realised what direction she was heading.
People take currency bets because they take economic views and these people did just that it seems. They in so doing also showed governments their actions have real world consequences. Whether good or bad we of course funny know yet although we do know (@rcs1000) that ceteris is never particularly paribus.
People like @Foxy misunderestimate how it all works.
I have effectively been shorting the pound for some time, shifting my equities into companies based overseas or earning overseas.
No insider knowledge needed, as the decline of Sterling was nailed on.
Absolutely couldn't agree more. I still have my Brexit position on (dollar-weighted) which is the gift that keeps on giving.
So you and I did exactly what those hedgies (apparently) did. Without the billions, however, sadly. It's like that other that irregular verb: I have a sensible ISA, you operate at the margins...
There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.
That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.
He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.
I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.
Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.
An inverted pyramid of piffle.
David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.
Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.
Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.
Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.
Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.
You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.
Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.
The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.
We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.
As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"
The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.
"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"
ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.
I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.
Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.
And I've stated how he *did* stop the west intervening. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.
As I asked before: do you think that Miliband's actions made Putin think the west was divided and weak, or strong?
Once again I will quote G.K. Chesterton’s poem in response to F.E. Smith’s ridiculous hyperbole that the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill “Shocked the conscience of every Christian community in Europe”.
“ ARE they clinging to their crosses, F.E. Smith, Where the Breton boat-fleet tosses, Are they, Smith? Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding, Wait the news from this our city? Groaning 'That's the Second Reading!' Hissing 'There is still Committee!' If the voice of Cecil falters, If McKenna's point has pith, Do they tremble for their altars? Do they, Smith?”
The idea that the Kremlin took any notice of the political opinion of the British Leader of the Opposition is ludicrous. Possibly the inaction of the UK Government may have encouraged them (although I doubt it) but that’s on the party management skills of David Cameron. Even then it wouldn’t have delayed the Americans one second if they really wanted to intervene.
That is moving the goalposts of our exchange somewhat.
As to that point, there is always debate amongst economists. Krugman (not notably right wing and a huge critic of austerity for example) says it's not all bad, others call for the end of the world.
As we have all agreed on here it's a huge gamble with us in the test tube to see if the experiment works.
Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson. It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.
Oh come on. Any government that doesn't have Nadine Dorries as a Secretary of State has to be a step up.
Not so fast on that one, Mr L. Take a look at the quality of the people she has put into the top three posts..... Stupid, irresponsible, and dictatorial, wouldn't you say?
Have you seen this from the Mail on Sunday?
"Kwasinomics is much more easily explained. He has essentially walked into the bank, and secured a loan against the full value of his house. Then he’s entered the nearest casino, and placed the entire amount on a single spin of the roulette wheel. If it comes up red, he will be rich beyond his dreams. If it doesn’t, he will be broke. And, more pertinently, so will Britain."
There are also reports of their friends in the banking community speculating against the pound. Of course, they would be. It is almost as though it had been set up for them.
Cameron, Osborne and Johnson were famous for having been members of the Bullingdon Club at Oxford, which specialised in visiting restaurants and trashing them. The present lot of Conservative are doing the same to the country.
Is there nobody left in the Conservative Party with any sense of decency, dignity and self-respect, who can stand up against this?
Trying to work out which one you think is which, and what you consider the top 3. The only one I think is stupid is Braverman. Cleverly is ok and it is too early to tell for Coffey.
The Kwarteng thing is being overdone, not least in that Mail piece. £49bn over 3 years is not the entire value of the house. It is roughly a quarter of what we threw at Covid over a shorter period, for example. The question is whether it will make things better or worse. The jury is out but they don't look thrilled.
In the 150 years since Friedrich Trump emigrated to the U.S. in 1885 to avoid conscription into the Bavarian army, no Trump male has ever served in the military.
That’s across four major wars including both World Wars, and numerous drafts.
More civil service and political sources saying it’s unheard of for a spad — still less a Downing St chief-of-staff — to be paid via a private lobbying company
There's a version of events in which the current inhabitants of the great offices of state are genuinely radical thinkers with a grand vision for a new and prosperous country in which everyone benefits.
But there's another version on which they are spivs and wide boys who will screw anything for a buck, intent on raping what's left of the economy before handing the mess off to somebody else to cleanup...
With the IR35 changes they are also allowing everyone else to make out as much as possible...
I'm spending this weekend working out how to stay outside the MSC legislation while offering a one stop "Run your PSC" accountancy firm that agencies can sell their workers....
If the Labour Party has a problem with our national flag and our Head of State it isn't ready for Government.
People won't elect a party to govern them that is disgusted by its own country.
I just don't think it appropriate to have pictures of the Monarch, or ex Monarch as the centrepiece of a Political Party Conference. Same for the national anthem.
If the Monarchy is to survive it needs to remain above Party politics, and that responsibility is not just on Royalty, but also on the parties.
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
Starmer comes out clearly against top rate tax cut. Pledges to reverse it. Labour MPs think Truss and Kwarteng have handed them a gift. Tory MPs also think they've handed Labour a gift. And they're right.
Starmer also says he supports basic rate cut to 19p. Why Labour are so happy. They can simultaneously offer a tax-cut for ordinary workers, commit to a populist tax-hike for those on the highest incomes, and appear they're being more fiscally prudent than the Conservatives.
Starmer's ratings are not as good as Blair's or Cameron's on the Ben Page chart but about the same as John Smith's at this stage and Smith would likely have won in 1997.
The odds of him winning a majority are certainly low and he is unlikely to match the Blair and Attlee landslides. A more realistic target for him would be the Cameron gains in 2010 which would give him most seats in a hung parliament
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.
On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.
Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.
OTOH no harm in having a patriotic and QE2-commemorating bit at the start, with photos, when he's doing his beginning thing: doesn't look as if it will be there all the time. Ticks it off the list and avoids the Tories attacking him if he doesn't, and plastering the late Her Maj all over their conference.
Agree. I don't see any downside. Winds up a few ultra-lefties, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and draws a very clear line between Starmer and the Thornberry tweet.
The Rochester flag one? All of 8 years ago?
Well, a line between Starmer and that kind of patronising stuff Labour used to come out with. There is a reason he's been going to pretty much every England game.
He is a genuine football fan, and played regularly himself.
He's predictably a Gooner isn't he? I preferred it when PMs in waiting followed less fashionable sides like West Ham Villa.
Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson. It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.
Oh come on. Any government that doesn't have Nadine Dorries as a Secretary of State has to be a step up.
Not so fast on that one, Mr L. Take a look at the quality of the people she has put into the top three posts..... Stupid, irresponsible, and dictatorial, wouldn't you say?
Have you seen this from the Mail on Sunday?
"Kwasinomics is much more easily explained. He has essentially walked into the bank, and secured a loan against the full value of his house. Then he’s entered the nearest casino, and placed the entire amount on a single spin of the roulette wheel. If it comes up red, he will be rich beyond his dreams. If it doesn’t, he will be broke. And, more pertinently, so will Britain."
There are also reports of their friends in the banking community speculating against the pound. Of course, they would be. It is almost as though it had been set up for them.
Cameron, Osborne and Johnson were famous for having been members of the Bullingdon Club at Oxford, which specialised in visiting restaurants and trashing them. The present lot of Conservative are doing the same to the country.
Is there nobody left in the Conservative Party with any sense of decency, dignity and self-respect, who can stand up against this?
So, unlike their Daily sister, they don't think this is a TRUE Tory budget?
As for the shorting the pound thing, it doesn't seem.like a stroke of genius deserving a huge bonus. One of the founding myths of 21st Century Euroscepticism is that devaluing your currency can be a good thing. Remember Golden Wednesday? The only surprises were the amount borrowed and the stupid way it was spent. Taking the mortgage analogy, KK is spending the loan on an even bigger telly for the front room when the rest of the house is crumbling.
If the Labour Party has a problem with our national flag and our Head of State it isn't ready for Government.
People won't elect a party to govern them that is disgusted by its own country.
I just don't think it appropriate to have pictures of the Monarch, or ex Monarch as the centrepiece of a Political Party Conference. Same for the national anthem.
If the Monarchy is to survive it needs to remain above Party politics, and that responsibility is not just on Royalty, but also on the parties.
Agreed, and this is why LizT going on the KC3 tour of Britain was a bad idea for both sides (aiui it was scaled down so maybe they lurk on pb).
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
According to twitter Starmer has ordered conference to all join in singing GSTK (standing presumably) which I find a bit more off putting than the mawkish tacky stuff tbh. However as I say that is according to twitter..
If the Labour Party has a problem with our national flag and our Head of State it isn't ready for Government.
People won't elect a party to govern them that is disgusted by its own country.
I just don't think it appropriate to have pictures of the Monarch, or ex Monarch as the centrepiece of a Political Party Conference. Same for the national anthem.
If the Monarchy is to survive it needs to remain above Party politics, and that responsibility is not just on Royalty, but also on the parties.
Just to be clear, are you opposing it because you support the monarchy and are worried this might damage the monarchy?
How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!
What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?
If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.
That sort of communication device is valuable
People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound. Equally, you could have listened to Truss at a Party rally and realised what direction she was heading.
People take currency bets because they take economic views and these people did just that it seems. They in so doing also showed governments their actions have real world consequences. Whether good or bad we of course funny know yet although we do know (@rcs1000) that ceteris is never particularly paribus.
People like @Foxy misunderestimate how it all works.
I have effectively been shorting the pound for some time, shifting my equities into companies based overseas or earning overseas.
No insider knowledge needed, as the decline of Sterling was nailed on.
Absolutely couldn't agree more. I still have my Brexit position on (dollar-weighted) which is the gift that keeps on giving.
So you and I did exactly what those hedgies (apparently) did. Without the billions, however, sadly. It's like that other that irregular verb: I have a sensible ISA, you operate at the margins...
‘He is being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority’?
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
This is at the heart of Labour’s strategic conundrum: the more they ape the English Tories, the more distasteful they become to their target voters in Scotland. Mark Drakeford knows what he’s doing. Anas Sarwar is yet another in an astonishing line of SLab duds.
Labour have made their ‘Muscular Unionism’ (copyright M Gove) bed. Now they must lie in it. Sweet dreams are profoundly unlikely.
To beat the SNP in Scotland SLab need Tory and LD tactical votes in seats where they are the main alternative to the SNP, as Ian Murray does so brilliantly in Edinburgh South. They need to unite Unionists behind them, they are not going to win over many if any Nationalists back from the SNP
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
According to twitter Starmer has ordered conference to all join in singing GSTK (standing presumably) which I find a bit more off putting than the mawkish tacky stuff tbh. However as I say that is according to twitter..
I am an atheist monarchist. It is the "God" bit I object to, not the "King" bit.
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
This is at the heart of Labour’s strategic conundrum: the more they ape the English Tories, the more distasteful they become to their target voters in Scotland. Mark Drakeford knows what he’s doing. Anas Sarwar is yet another in an astonishing line of SLab duds.
Labour have made their ‘Muscular Unionism’ (copyright M Gove) bed. Now they must lie in it. Sweet dreams are profoundly unlikely.
To beat the SNP in Scotland SLab need Tory and LD tactical votes in seats where they are in second place, as Ian Murray does so brilliantly in Edinburgh South. They need to united Unionists behind them, they are not going to win over many if any Nationalists back from the SNP
The tweeter in the image I posted is a recently retired SLab MSP. Doesn’t Starmer need to keep people like him on board?
In the 150 years since Friedrich Trump emigrated to the U.S. in 1885 to avoid conscription into the Bavarian army, no Trump male has ever served in the military.
That’s across four major wars including both World Wars, and numerous drafts.
Starmer beating Truss everywhere, although Labour strategists will be perplexed as to why it is so close in the north of England. And, as always, the Scottish numbers look dire for Labour, as a net gain of 124 seats is dependent on one of three things:
A. An SNP collapse in Scotland B. A Con collapse in England C. A Lib Dem landslide in the south of England
None of those three scenarios looks likely at present, although B may come into play next year, unless the global economy perks up pronto. Likelihood of these scenarios happening at the next UK GE?
B 25/1 ? C 33/1 ? A 100/1 ?
If my odds are remotely near correct, then the current price for Lab Maj of 5/2 looks like staggeringly poor value.
Those rest of South numbers will worry Truss, that is the Tories heartland, if she is even trailing Starmer there on net favourability
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
According to twitter Starmer has ordered conference to all join in singing GSTK (standing presumably) which I find a bit more off putting than the mawkish tacky stuff tbh. However as I say that is according to twitter..
I am an atheist monarchist. It is the "God" bit I object to, not the "King" bit.
Cold, empty, deity-free universe save the King doesn’t quite have the same ring to it 🙂
Membership of the SM was indeed deeply ruinous for us. We simply failed to adjust our economic policies to address the strictures it should have placed on us. We needed to run much tighter credit, game the allocation of public contracts, provide indirect subsidies to businesses making things here through training, housing and infrastructure and focus like a laser on the balance of payments. Instead we had a Chancellor who thought that did not matter and other Chancellors and PMs who regarded our exchange rate as some sort of macho posturing. It was a completely wasted opportunity which has got us into this mess.
How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!
What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?
If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.
That sort of communication device is valuable
People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound. Equally, you could have listened to Truss at a Party rally and realised what direction she was heading.
People take currency bets because they take economic views and these people did just that it seems. They in so doing also showed governments their actions have real world consequences. Whether good or bad we of course funny know yet although we do know (@rcs1000) that ceteris is never particularly paribus.
People like @Foxy misunderestimate how it all works.
I have effectively been shorting the pound for some time, shifting my equities into companies based overseas or earning overseas.
No insider knowledge needed, as the decline of Sterling was nailed on.
Absolutely couldn't agree more. I still have my Brexit position on (dollar-weighted) which is the gift that keeps on giving.
So you and I did exactly what those hedgies (apparently) did. Without the billions, however, sadly. It's like that other that irregular verb: I have a sensible ISA, you operate at the margins...
‘He is being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority’?
Didn't see that what is the charge? He tells some hedgies what his leader has been telling the nation for the past three months?
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
According to twitter Starmer has ordered conference to all join in singing GSTK (standing presumably) which I find a bit more off putting than the mawkish tacky stuff tbh. However as I say that is according to twitter..
I am an atheist monarchist. It is the "God" bit I object to, not the "King" bit.
Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and takes an oath to protect the security of the Church of Scotland, very much God should be saving him.
Though personally I would just have GSTK as the royal anthem now the Queen has passed away, played at any event the monarch or a member of the royal family is in attendance in the UK or in the Commonwealth realms.
England and the UK should get their own anthems, probably Jerusalem as at the Commonwealth Games and Land of Hope and Glory
Haven't bothered before but just looked at the list of ministerial appointments. Andrea Jenkins, Jonathan Gullis, Marcus Fysh, Mark Jenkinson. It shows the real nature of Truss' government. There have always been these sort of MPs (a few) in previous Tory Governments but very much on the fringe and regarded as a bit of a joke in the mainstream of the party. Now it's find the most shouty, controversial,not given to deep thinking backbencher you can and make them a minister or a whip.
Oh come on. Any government that doesn't have Nadine Dorries as a Secretary of State has to be a step up.
Not so fast on that one, Mr L. Take a look at the quality of the people she has put into the top three posts..... Stupid, irresponsible, and dictatorial, wouldn't you say?
Have you seen this from the Mail on Sunday?
"Kwasinomics is much more easily explained. He has essentially walked into the bank, and secured a loan against the full value of his house. Then he’s entered the nearest casino, and placed the entire amount on a single spin of the roulette wheel. If it comes up red, he will be rich beyond his dreams. If it doesn’t, he will be broke. And, more pertinently, so will Britain."
More like: if it comes up red, he will just scrape by ...
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
According to twitter Starmer has ordered conference to all join in singing GSTK (standing presumably) which I find a bit more off putting than the mawkish tacky stuff tbh. However as I say that is according to twitter..
I am an atheist monarchist. It is the "God" bit I object to, not the "King" bit.
Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and takes an oath to protect the security of the Church of Scotland, very much God should be saving him.
Though personally I would just have GSTK as the royal anthem now the Queen has passed away, played at any event the monarch is in attendance in the UK or in the Commonwealth realms.
England and the UK should get their own anthems, probably Jerusalem as at the Commonwealth Games and Land of Hope and Glory
Should he have saved Ed VIII, or only temporarily? Should he have propped up G VI a bit longer?
How fortunate that #shortingthepound should be so profitable in the same year that bonuses are uncapped!
What would we do without these delightful people being attracted to the City?
If it wasn’t for the pound collapse most normal non-political people wouldn’t have figured the budget was a bad thing.
That sort of communication device is valuable
People don't wake up on a given morning and think I'm going to short the pound. Equally, you could have listened to Truss at a Party rally and realised what direction she was heading.
People take currency bets because they take economic views and these people did just that it seems. They in so doing also showed governments their actions have real world consequences. Whether good or bad we of course funny know yet although we do know (@rcs1000) that ceteris is never particularly paribus.
People like @Foxy misunderestimate how it all works.
I have effectively been shorting the pound for some time, shifting my equities into companies based overseas or earning overseas.
No insider knowledge needed, as the decline of Sterling was nailed on.
Absolutely couldn't agree more. I still have my Brexit position on (dollar-weighted) which is the gift that keeps on giving.
So you and I did exactly what those hedgies (apparently) did. Without the billions, however, sadly. It's like that other that irregular verb: I have a sensible ISA, you operate at the margins...
‘He is being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority’?
Didn't see that what is the charge? He tells some hedgies what his leader has been telling the nation for the past three months?
I think TPP is merely completing the syntax of the irregular verb.
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
This is at the heart of Labour’s strategic conundrum: the more they ape the English Tories, the more distasteful they become to their target voters in Scotland. Mark Drakeford knows what he’s doing. Anas Sarwar is yet another in an astonishing line of SLab duds.
Labour have made their ‘Muscular Unionism’ (copyright M Gove) bed. Now they must lie in it. Sweet dreams are profoundly unlikely.
To beat the SNP in Scotland SLab need Tory and LD tactical votes in seats where they are in second place, as Ian Murray does so brilliantly in Edinburgh South. They need to united Unionists behind them, they are not going to win over many if any Nationalists back from the SNP
The tweeter in the image I posted is a recently retired SLab MSP. Doesn’t Starmer need to keep people like him on board?
No, Findlay is a hard left socialist who only got into Holyrood on the list
If the Labour Party has a problem with our national flag and our Head of State it isn't ready for Government.
People won't elect a party to govern them that is disgusted by its own country.
I just don't think it appropriate to have pictures of the Monarch, or ex Monarch as the centrepiece of a Political Party Conference. Same for the national anthem.
If the Monarchy is to survive it needs to remain above Party politics, and that responsibility is not just on Royalty, but also on the parties.
Just to be clear, are you opposing it because you support the monarchy and are worried this might damage the monarchy?
That is the gist.
No party has a monopoly on patriotism, nor should it pretend to. The Monarchy, anthem and flag are all national symbols not political ones.
Starmer's ratings are not as good as Blair's or Cameron's on the Ben Page chart but about the same as John Smith's at this stage and Smith would likely have won in 1997.
The odds of him winning a majority are certainly low and he is unlikely to match the Blair and Attlee landslides. A more realistic target for him would be the Cameron gains in 2010 which would give him most seats in a hung parliament
According to Oddschecker Starmer PM after election and Labour most seats are both best priced at 8/11. There is a very small chance he won't lead Labour into next election. A bigger chance imo that they have less seats than the Tories but he becomes PM. So I'd say Starmer for PM is the better bet. But DYOR.
Starmer beating Truss everywhere, although Labour strategists will be perplexed as to why it is so close in the north of England. And, as always, the Scottish numbers look dire for Labour, as a net gain of 124 seats is dependent on one of three things:
A. An SNP collapse in Scotland B. A Con collapse in England C. A Lib Dem landslide in the south of England
None of those three scenarios looks likely at present, although B may come into play next year, unless the global economy perks up pronto. Likelihood of these scenarios happening at the next UK GE?
B 25/1 ? C 33/1 ? A 100/1 ?
If my odds are remotely near correct, then the current price for Lab Maj of 5/2 looks like staggeringly poor value.
Those rest of South numbers will worry Truss, that is the Tories heartland, if she is even trailing Starmer there on net favourability
Combined with the YG regional cross breaks showing the Lib Dems at their strongest in rest of the South and London while weak elsewhere (hence much more efficient than previously) and she is facing a pincer movement. Lib Dems in Kherson and Labour in Kharkiv.
If the Labour Party has a problem with our national flag and our Head of State it isn't ready for Government.
People won't elect a party to govern them that is disgusted by its own country.
I just don't think it appropriate to have pictures of the Monarch, or ex Monarch as the centrepiece of a Political Party Conference. Same for the national anthem.
If the Monarchy is to survive it needs to remain above Party politics, and that responsibility is not just on Royalty, but also on the parties.
The opposite, I actually think it is great Labour is showing support for our monarchy now and that the monarchy is not just seen as something mainly for Tories.
You can support the monarchy whether Labour, LD or Tory and that is a good message from Starmer, far better than that under the republican Corbyn which was apathy at best about the monarch and union.
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
According to twitter Starmer has ordered conference to all join in singing GSTK (standing presumably) which I find a bit more off putting than the mawkish tacky stuff tbh. However as I say that is according to twitter..
I am an atheist monarchist. It is the "God" bit I object to, not the "King" bit.
I agree. Tony Benn was once asked by an evangelist to agree that "Jesus is Lord"
He replied that he couldn't, it wasn't Jesus that he objected to but Lords.
Amber rain alert for the middle part of the west coast - Tuscany, Lazio, Campania and in to Molise, yellow rain alert very widely from Venice to Sardinia to Puglia.
A lot of the left's constituency hopes in that amber zone, might also depress their national vote share a tad if it depresses turnout.
There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.
That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.
He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.
I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.
Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.
An inverted pyramid of piffle.
David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.
Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.
Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.
Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.
Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.
You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.
Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.
The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.
We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.
As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"
The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.
"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"
ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.
I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.
Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.
And I've stated how he *did* stop the west intervening. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.
As I asked before: do you think that Miliband's actions made Putin think the west was divided and weak, or strong?
Once again I will quote G.K. Chesterton’s poem in response to F.E. Smith’s ridiculous hyperbole that the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill “Shocked the conscience of every Christian community in Europe”.
“ ARE they clinging to their crosses, F.E. Smith, Where the Breton boat-fleet tosses, Are they, Smith? Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding, Wait the news from this our city? Groaning 'That's the Second Reading!' Hissing 'There is still Committee!' If the voice of Cecil falters, If McKenna's point has pith, Do they tremble for their altars? Do they, Smith?”
The idea that the Kremlin took any notice of the political opinion of the British Leader of the Opposition is ludicrous. Possibly the inaction of the UK Government may have encouraged them (although I doubt it) but that’s on the party management skills of David Cameron. Even then it wouldn’t have delayed the Americans one second if they really wanted to intervene.
It really is not ludicrous. Putin has coveted neighbouring countries for years; at least a decade. Yet he knew that any attack on his neighbouring countries may provoke a reaction from other countries or even NATO.
But Iraq and Afghanistan happened, and the 'west' was militarily in a little turmoil, having done the 'wrong' thing in at least one of those cases, and being bogged down in both. Then Syria happened, and Assad used chemical weapons. Would we react to that evil militarily?
No, we did not. So why should he think we'd react when he invaded Crimea? (and we did not, aside from some weak sanctions). Why should he think we'd react when he poisoned people in Salisbury? Why should be think we'd react when he invaded Ukraine?
Syria was a time when we were faced with the use of WMD by a malign state, and we - the west - did nothing. In fact, we did a deal which gave Russia immense power in the region. Why would Putin think we'd do anything substantive now?
The ludicrous thing is your apparent belief that Putin would *not* pay any attention to our reactions.
An absolute car crash from the Chancellor this morning
It doesn’t help that his accent has almost the identical deep Etonian timbre as Johnson (though better than the sneering tone of JRM). When you hear someone that posh defending trickle down policies it has the same visceral impact as hearing someone with a Scargillian accent doing an old-Labour rant.
Starmer beating Truss everywhere, although Labour strategists will be perplexed as to why it is so close in the north of England. And, as always, the Scottish numbers look dire for Labour, as a net gain of 124 seats is dependent on one of three things:
A. An SNP collapse in Scotland B. A Con collapse in England C. A Lib Dem landslide in the south of England
None of those three scenarios looks likely at present, although B may come into play next year, unless the global economy perks up pronto. Likelihood of these scenarios happening at the next UK GE?
B 25/1 ? C 33/1 ? A 100/1 ?
If my odds are remotely near correct, then the current price for Lab Maj of 5/2 looks like staggeringly poor value.
Those rest of South numbers will worry Truss, that is the Tories heartland, if she is even trailing Starmer there on net favourability
Combined with the YG regional cross breaks showing the Lib Dems at their strongest in rest of the South and London while weak elsewhere (hence much more efficient than previously) and she is facing a pincer movement. Lib Dems in Kherson and Labour in Kharkiv.
Indeed, she will hope her tax cuts mainly focused at wealthy Home Counties voters will boost her
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
According to twitter Starmer has ordered conference to all join in singing GSTK (standing presumably) which I find a bit more off putting than the mawkish tacky stuff tbh. However as I say that is according to twitter..
I am an atheist monarchist. It is the "God" bit I object to, not the "King" bit.
Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and takes an oath to protect the security of the Church of Scotland, very much God should be saving him.
Though personally I would just have GSTK as the royal anthem now the Queen has passed away, played at any event the monarch is in attendance in the UK or in the Commonwealth realms.
England and the UK should get their own anthems, probably Jerusalem as at the Commonwealth Games and Land of Hope and Glory
Should he have saved Ed VIII, or only temporarily? Should he have propped up G VI a bit longer?
He saves whoever is monarch for as long as they are monarch as he divinely ordains
I just don't think it appropriate to have pictures of the Monarch, or ex Monarch as the centrepiece of a Political Party Conference. Same for the national anthem.
Is it the centrepiece, though, or is this just an image they're going to display on that screen for 15 minutes for a remembrance-type bit at the start, before moving on to using the screen for other things during the rest of the conference?
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.
On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.
Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.
OTOH no harm in having a patriotic and QE2-commemorating bit at the start, with photos, when he's doing his beginning thing: doesn't look as if it will be there all the time. Ticks it off the list and avoids the Tories attacking him if he doesn't, and plastering the late Her Maj all over their conference.
Agree. I don't see any downside. Winds up a few ultra-lefties, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and draws a very clear line between Starmer and the Thornberry tweet.
The Rochester flag one? All of 8 years ago?
Well, a line between Starmer and that kind of patronising stuff Labour used to come out with. There is a reason he's been going to pretty much every England game.
He is a genuine football fan, and played regularly himself.
He's predictably a Gooner isn't he? I preferred it when PMs in waiting followed less fashionable sides like West Ham Villa.
Yet when he came out in support of England during the Euros he looked clunky, awkward and insincere. It was weird. This should have been the one area where his authenticity wasn't in doubt. And if you knew anything about him you knew he was genuine. It's not that he can't fake sincerity. He can't even do sincerity sincerely.
Starmer has an advantage in that he is quite popular with Lib Dem voters who will vote tactically as they did in 1997, I do believe.
Also, the Tories seem to now just be handing him seats.
As a sample of one Lib Dem I’m certainly intensely relaxed about a Starmer led government after the next election. Ideally one that introduces PR of course.
There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.
That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.
He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.
I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.
Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.
An inverted pyramid of piffle.
David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.
Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.
Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.
Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.
Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.
You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.
Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.
The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.
We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.
As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"
The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.
"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"
ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.
I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.
Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.
And I've stated how he *did* stop the west intervening. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.
As I asked before: do you think that Miliband's actions made Putin think the west was divided and weak, or strong?
OK I've gone back and re-read all your comments on this thread. You seem to be depending on America being influenced by the British vote. As already posted by myself and Dura_Ace, there is strong circumstantial evidence this was not the case.
David Cameron could not persuade his own MPs to back him. He could not persuade America. Cameron also tried and failed to persuade Russia (and let's not ask what message that sent to Putin). There is no evidence for the causal line you have drawn between Ed Miliband and Ukraine.
As I said (and was said at the time), America did not want to go into Syria alone. When we did not do anything because of Miliband's actions, they decided they could not.
And as I responded to DA; the Russian 'deal' was *after* Miliband's actions, a last-gasp by Obama to be seen to be doing something after the vote fell through. It's therefore irrelevant.
The connection is obvious. You just don't want to see it.
So I ask again: do you think our actions over Syria made Putin think the west was strong, or weak?
Starmer has an advantage in that he is quite popular with Lib Dem voters who will vote tactically as they did in 1997, I do believe.
Also, the Tories seem to now just be handing him seats.
As a sample of one Lib Dem I’m certainly intensely relaxed about a Starmer led government after the next election. Ideally one that introduces PR of course.
Keir Starmer confirms that Labour would reintroduce the top rate of 45p on income tax that the government scrapped this week but adds that “we should reduce the tax burden on working people” and says he would keep the 1p cut to the basic rate #BBCLauraK
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
Life moves fast. The mournfest is over, and using the late Queen a bit distasteful.
On the other hand the graph in the header shows what a patriotic but dull and uncharismatic London lawyer can do. 1945 was far and away the outstanding GE in that graph.
Yep, the tacky opportunism is what struck me after I wtf-ed. As noted previously the QEII wave of emotion has subsided much more quickly than even I anticipated, and SKS & co may have missed that particular boat (stop mixing yr fcking metaphors-Ed). However I always thought Lab’s best move was concentrating on England rather than eg depending on some unlikely SLab revival; looks like SKS has decided to do the hard, dirty work required.
OTOH no harm in having a patriotic and QE2-commemorating bit at the start, with photos, when he's doing his beginning thing: doesn't look as if it will be there all the time. Ticks it off the list and avoids the Tories attacking him if he doesn't, and plastering the late Her Maj all over their conference.
Agree. I don't see any downside. Winds up a few ultra-lefties, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and draws a very clear line between Starmer and the Thornberry tweet.
The Rochester flag one? All of 8 years ago?
Well, a line between Starmer and that kind of patronising stuff Labour used to come out with. There is a reason he's been going to pretty much every England game.
He is a genuine football fan, and played regularly himself.
He's predictably a Gooner isn't he? I preferred it when PMs in waiting followed less fashionable sides like West Ham Villa.
Yet when he came out in support of England during the Euros he looked clunky, awkward and insincere. It was weird. This should have been the one area where his authenticity wasn't in doubt. And if you knew anything about him you knew he was genuine. It's not that he can't fake sincerity. He can't even do sincerity sincerely.
I agree. He can't even espouse the things he believes in effectively.
That is part of his difficulties with the far left. I think Starmer is actually fairly left wing, but understand why others don't believe him. He cannot communicate any vision, so appears to have none.
Starmer beating Truss everywhere, although Labour strategists will be perplexed as to why it is so close in the north of England. And, as always, the Scottish numbers look dire for Labour, as a net gain of 124 seats is dependent on one of three things:
A. An SNP collapse in Scotland B. A Con collapse in England C. A Lib Dem landslide in the south of England
None of those three scenarios looks likely at present, although B may come into play next year, unless the global economy perks up pronto. Likelihood of these scenarios happening at the next UK GE?
B 25/1 ? C 33/1 ? A 100/1 ?
If my odds are remotely near correct, then the current price for Lab Maj of 5/2 looks like staggeringly poor value.
Those rest of South numbers will worry Truss, that is the Tories heartland, if she is even trailing Starmer there on net favourability
Combined with the YG regional cross breaks showing the Lib Dems at their strongest in rest of the South and London while weak elsewhere (hence much more efficient than previously) and she is facing a pincer movement. Lib Dems in Kherson and Labour in Kharkiv.
Indeed, she will hope her tax cuts mainly focused at wealthy Home Counties voters will boost her
There’s only a few hundred thousand benefitting, of which many live in safe Labour London seats, many more in safe Lib Dem SW London seats and many of rest, if initial reactions from people I’ve spoken to are to go by, are pretty surprised and uncomfortable with the cut. Treating it as an unexpected windfall to go into savings or charity, and fully expecting it only to last 2 years.
There's one area where Starmer and Miliband are *very* different: Russia. Miliband's hideous refusal to react to Syrian use of chemical weapons in 2013 - a refusal done for narrow political reasons, and which caused the US to pull out of of action as well. This happened despite agreeing a deal with Cameron.
That happened in 2013, and I'd argue it sent Russia a very strong message that the west was too divided to act, even against the use of chemical weapons. That would have been at the very least in the back of Putin's mind when he ordered the Crimean takeover, his Donbass adventures and Salisbury; let alone this year's folly.
He thought the west was weak and divided; we gave indications that we were weak and divided. He's learnt that whilst we may be weak and divided, we're not weak and divided enough.
I see no indication that Starmer would be weaker against Russia than Truss (though that may or may not have been the case if he had been in charge in February. That's a key difference with Miliband.
Many anti-war loons go on about 'eastwards expansion of NATO' or 'Ukrainian Nazis'. It's a shame they cannot look deep into their own souls and look at their own responsibility.
An inverted pyramid of piffle.
David Cameron could not convince even his own party to back his Syrian adventurism. Cameron also tried and failed to make a deal with Putin on Syria. The United States did not need British backing had it decided to use force against Syria; America offered to release Britain from any supposed obligation to join its actions against Afghanistan and Iraq; similarly, America did not need Ed Miliband to convince them not to intervene against Syria.
Away from the Middle East, there were many on the right who condemned either Nato or EU expansion up to Russia's borders, but, like America, perhaps Russia too made its own decisions.
Let us hope the Ukraine war is no longer a factor by the time the next election rolls round.
Oh come off it! Your crass denialism is exactly why the left - even the sane left such as yourself - will just allow this sort of sh*t to happen again when they get power.
Labour and the left - along with others - turned a blind eye to the use of WMD against civilians. The world is not paying the consequences of that.
You are shifting ground slightly. The situation in Syria was unclear at the time, with almost no-one on the side of the angels. Were we to fight alongside ISIS or Al Qaeda? Earlier Western intervention in Iraq and then in Libya had not ended well. The contention that Miliband caused no action to be taken is preposterous. David Cameron had failed to convince Russia, America or even his own backbenchers that this time it would be different.
Nor is there any reason to link Syria with Russia invading Ukraine.
The situation on the ground really was not unclear - that is rewriting history because our lack of support changed the situation on the ground. and the good people/groups pretty much got wiped out. It was also very clear that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons. You think it is unclear because it benefits you to do do so, because you know your side f***ed up.
We betrayed good people and allowed evil to flourish. We then allowed evil in the form of Putin to get involved, and gave evil the impression we'd do nothing when evil occurred in the future.
As for your last line. What message do you think Putin got from Miliband stopping the west from intervening against Assad, when Assad used chemical weapons? Do you think Putin thought: "Oh, the west is strong. I'd better not invade Crimea next year?"
The point is that Miliband did not stop the West intervening against Assad. You are simply drawing a line between two things you dislike. Well, guess what, most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons and to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That does not mean they are linked via Ed Miliband.
"most people objected to Assad's use of chemical weapons"
ISTR there were a fair few people in here in *denial* about his use of chemical weapons. Some almost certainly still are. Ditto the invasion of Ukraine - and more when you add in the people who blame us for it (or say we 'poked' them into it.
I've said how Miliband stopped the west intervening. I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.
Miliband did not stop the West intervening. The United States made its own decision not to intervene. I've already mentioned Obama saying he was proud of this. Does that sound like he was forced into it by Ed Miliband? If you think Britain would have intervened without America, well, it is possible but then Cameron would need to have persuaded all of his own MPs, which he did not. If he had, it is still unlikely we'd have moved without US backing.
And I've stated how he *did* stop the west intervening. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.
As I asked before: do you think that Miliband's actions made Putin think the west was divided and weak, or strong?
Putin knew we were divided about what to do already. The history of Western military intervention in the Middle East wasn't looking very appealing, even before deciding to back Assad or Al Qaida in the battle for Syria.
"Putin knew we were divided about what to do already."
And we just confirmed it, didn't we? We rolled over and sent the message that we would not react to provocations or the use of WMD.
And as I believe I was saying at the time: it gave other countries the green-light to use WMD. And then Putin used them against us in Salisbury.
If we'd shown strength and moral courage then, and shown that the use of chemical weapons was wrong and would get a reaction from civilised nations, he might just have not grabbed Crimea less than a year later.
If the Labour Party has a problem with our national flag and our Head of State it isn't ready for Government.
People won't elect a party to govern them that is disgusted by its own country.
I just don't think it appropriate to have pictures of the Monarch, or ex Monarch as the centrepiece of a Political Party Conference. Same for the national anthem.
If the Monarchy is to survive it needs to remain above Party politics, and that responsibility is not just on Royalty, but also on the parties.
Just to be clear, are you opposing it because you support the monarchy and are worried this might damage the monarchy?
That is the gist.
No party has a monopoly on patriotism, nor should it pretend to. The Monarchy, anthem and flag are all national symbols not political ones.
Tell that to the countries that chose not to stay in the Commonwealth.
Starmer's ratings are not as good as Blair's or Cameron's on the Ben Page chart but about the same as John Smith's at this stage and Smith would likely have won in 1997.
The odds of him winning a majority are certainly low and he is unlikely to match the Blair and Attlee landslides. A more realistic target for him would be the Cameron gains in 2010 which would give him most seats in a hung parliament
To be fair, as with Cameron, a 100 seat advance would be pretty impressive and would make it very difficult for Labour not to be leading the next Government.
As we're already seeing, Truss is likely to be a polarising figure and those who support her will be with her to the very end (and perhaps beyond).
If a post-Government Conservative Opposition is still seen to be following policies akin to Truss/Kwarteng it will be hugely beneficial to Starmer in holding together any alternative grouping of parties as, pace Orwell, none of them will want to see "Jones" back.
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
I'm not a socialist (in any form) but I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I don't mind what vision people have for the UK as long as they love it.
Labour Party 2022: Patriot Harder. Will the Red Flag be making an appearance?
I don't see any contradiction between celebrating the life of the late Queen and singing the Red Flag. A democratic socialist constitutional monarchy is what we should be aiming for. And people do really miss her. I was at a party in a local pub last night and the pub had a whole wall given over to a celebration of her life. It made me go a bit tearful!
According to twitter Starmer has ordered conference to all join in singing GSTK (standing presumably) which I find a bit more off putting than the mawkish tacky stuff tbh. However as I say that is according to twitter..
I am an atheist monarchist. It is the "God" bit I object to, not the "King" bit.
Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and takes an oath to protect the security of the Church of Scotland, very much God should be saving him.
Though personally I would just have GSTK as the royal anthem now the Queen has passed away, played at any event the monarch is in attendance in the UK or in the Commonwealth realms.
England and the UK should get their own anthems, probably Jerusalem as at the Commonwealth Games and Land of Hope and Glory
Should he have saved Ed VIII, or only temporarily? Should he have propped up G VI a bit longer?
He saves whoever is monarch for as long as they are monarch as he divinely ordains
So we should sing God save the king, or not, your decision mate
Comments
Airdrie and Shotts
Coatbridge and Bellshill
West Dunbartonshire
East Lothian Coast
Edinburgh East
Edinburgh North and Leith
West Fife
Glasgow Central
Glasgow East
Glasgow North
Glasgow South
Glasgow South West
Glasgow West
Hamilton and Clyde Valley
Inverclyde and Bridge of Weir
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
Midlothian
Motherwell and Clydesdale North
Na h-Eileanan an Iar
Rutherglen
??
Forgive my scepticism.
No insider knowledge needed, as the decline of Sterling was nailed on.
Have you seen this from the Mail on Sunday?
"Kwasinomics is much more easily explained. He has essentially walked into the bank, and secured a loan against the full value of his house. Then he’s entered the nearest casino, and placed the entire amount on a single spin of the roulette wheel. If it comes up red, he will be rich beyond his dreams. If it doesn’t, he will be broke. And, more pertinently, so will Britain."
There are also reports of their friends in the banking community speculating against the pound. Of course, they would be. It is almost as though it had been set up for them.
Cameron, Osborne and Johnson were famous for having been members of the Bullingdon Club at Oxford, which specialised in visiting restaurants and trashing them. The present lot of Conservative are doing the same to the country.
Is there nobody left in the Conservative Party with any sense of decency, dignity and self-respect, who can stand up against this?
We have been running a trade deficit of substantial proportions for nearly 30 years continuously. This means that there is always more pounds in the hands of foreigners than actually want them. It also means in cumulo that it is becoming increasingly impossible for us to fix this because so many of our wealth producing assets have already been sold. In the first couple of quarters this deficit reached record levels. The idea that we have been enduring some sort of "austerity" is actually bizarre. We have been continuously living beyond our means, recklessly so.
WW3 hasn't happened yet because it cannot work out where to start, Ukraine or Taiwan. The uncertainty makes the dollar stronger.
We have a muppet in the BoE who seems indifferent to the differential between our interest rates and the US rates or the consequential inflationary push of a weak currency.
Given these 3 prevailing hurricanes it really doesn't take more than a gentle zephyr to bring another round of selling forward.
And that article doesn't say they were all at dinner together although KK might of course know plenty of hedgies.
If the chancellor chancels and the markets tell him they have concerns then surely that is a good thing.
Anyway, you don’t have a vote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63022093
Get it moved before anyone sees it!
So you and I did exactly what those hedgies (apparently) did. Without the billions, however, sadly. It's like that other that irregular verb: I have a sensible ISA, you operate at the margins...
Now the markets are left-wing. Hilarious.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/09/24/hysterical-over-reactions-budget-betray-ignorance-history-economics/
“ ARE they clinging to their crosses,
F.E. Smith,
Where the Breton boat-fleet tosses,
Are they, Smith?
Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,
Wait the news from this our city?
Groaning 'That's the Second Reading!'
Hissing 'There is still Committee!'
If the voice of Cecil falters,
If McKenna's point has pith,
Do they tremble for their altars?
Do they, Smith?”
The idea that the Kremlin took any notice of the political opinion of the British Leader of the Opposition is ludicrous. Possibly the inaction of the UK Government may have encouraged them (although I doubt it) but that’s on the party management skills of David Cameron. Even then it wouldn’t have delayed the Americans one second if they really wanted to intervene.
As to that point, there is always debate amongst economists. Krugman (not notably right wing and a huge critic of austerity for example) says it's not all bad, others call for the end of the world.
As we have all agreed on here it's a huge gamble with us in the test tube to see if the experiment works.
To use a few metaphors.
The Kwarteng thing is being overdone, not least in that Mail piece. £49bn over 3 years is not the entire value of the house. It is roughly a quarter of what we threw at Covid over a shorter period, for example. The question is whether it will make things better or worse. The jury is out but they don't look thrilled.
🌹LAB: 46% (+5)
🌳CON: 23% (-3)
🌼PC: 15% (-1)
🔶LDM: 5% (-2)
➡️REF: 5% (+1)
The gap between Labour and Tory in Wales at the last election was around 5 points, wasn't it?
People won't elect a party to govern them that is disgusted by its own country.
https://twitter.com/marko_kloos/status/1573896600509890561
In the 150 years since Friedrich Trump emigrated to the U.S. in 1885 to avoid conscription into the Bavarian army, no Trump male has ever served in the military.
That’s across four major wars including both World Wars, and numerous drafts.
I'm spending this weekend working out how to stay outside the MSC legislation while offering a one stop "Run your PSC" accountancy firm that agencies can sell their workers....
Though no plans for a specific tax for social care
If the Monarchy is to survive it needs to remain above Party politics, and that responsibility is not just on Royalty, but also on the parties.
How much did the drop in Sterling on Friday cost?
Starmer also says he supports basic rate cut to 19p. Why Labour are so happy. They can simultaneously offer a tax-cut for ordinary workers, commit to a populist tax-hike for those on the highest incomes, and appear they're being more fiscally prudent than the Conservatives.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1573952266889007105
The odds of him winning a majority are certainly low and he is unlikely to match the Blair and Attlee landslides. A more realistic target for him would be the Cameron gains in 2010 which would give him most seats in a hung parliament
As for the shorting the pound thing, it doesn't seem.like a stroke of genius deserving a huge bonus. One of the founding myths of 21st Century Euroscepticism is that devaluing your currency can be a good thing. Remember Golden Wednesday?
The only surprises were the amount borrowed and the stupid way it was spent. Taking the mortgage analogy, KK is spending the loan on an even bigger telly for the front room when the rest of the house is crumbling.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1573953565776924672
Though personally I would just have GSTK as the royal anthem now the Queen has passed away, played at any event the monarch or a member of the royal family is in attendance in the UK or in the Commonwealth realms.
England and the UK should get their own anthems, probably Jerusalem as at the Commonwealth Games and Land of Hope and Glory
No party has a monopoly on patriotism, nor should it pretend to. The Monarchy, anthem and flag are all national symbols not political ones.
previously) and she is facing a pincer movement. Lib Dems in Kherson and Labour in Kharkiv.
You can support the monarchy whether Labour, LD or Tory and that is a good message from Starmer, far better than that under the republican Corbyn which was apathy at best about the monarch and union.
He replied that he couldn't, it wasn't Jesus that he objected to but Lords.
Amber rain alert for the middle part of the west coast - Tuscany, Lazio, Campania and in to Molise, yellow rain alert very widely from Venice to Sardinia to Puglia.
A lot of the left's constituency hopes in that amber zone, might also depress their national vote share a tad if it depresses turnout.
Also, the Tories seem to now just be handing him seats.
Interesting bit on how the US Army maintains and repairs systems downrange in Ukraine. Basically, they do it over Zoom.
VVP is definitely right when he says Russia is fighting a lot more than just Ukraine in the SMO.
But Iraq and Afghanistan happened, and the 'west' was militarily in a little turmoil, having done the 'wrong' thing in at least one of those cases, and being bogged down in both. Then Syria happened, and Assad used chemical weapons. Would we react to that evil militarily?
No, we did not. So why should he think we'd react when he invaded Crimea? (and we did not, aside from some weak sanctions). Why should he think we'd react when he poisoned people in Salisbury? Why should be think we'd react when he invaded Ukraine?
Syria was a time when we were faced with the use of WMD by a malign state, and we - the west - did nothing. In fact, we did a deal which gave Russia immense power in the region. Why would Putin think we'd do anything substantive now?
The ludicrous thing is your apparent belief that Putin would *not* pay any attention to our reactions.
It was weird. This should have been the one area where his authenticity wasn't in doubt. And if you knew anything about him you knew he was genuine.
It's not that he can't fake sincerity. He can't even do sincerity sincerely.
And as I responded to DA; the Russian 'deal' was *after* Miliband's actions, a last-gasp by Obama to be seen to be doing something after the vote fell through. It's therefore irrelevant.
The connection is obvious. You just don't want to see it.
So I ask again: do you think our actions over Syria made Putin think the west was strong, or weak?
Keir Starmer confirms that Labour would reintroduce the top rate of 45p on income tax that the government scrapped this week but adds that “we should reduce the tax burden on working people” and says he would keep the 1p cut to the basic rate #BBCLauraK
New poll by YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni:
Conservative - 23% (-3)
Labour - 46% (+5)
Liberal Democrats - 5% (-2)
Plaid Cymru - 15% (-1)
Also, disaster for the Tories in Wales.
- Doing Well as Labour Leader - 54%
- Doing Badly - 35%
- Don't Know - 11%
Big G must be gutted.
That is part of his difficulties with the far left. I think Starmer is actually fairly left wing, but understand why others don't believe him. He cannot communicate any vision, so appears to have none.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1573957936962994177
With Laura K
And we just confirmed it, didn't we? We rolled over and sent the message that we would not react to provocations or the use of WMD.
And as I believe I was saying at the time: it gave other countries the green-light to use WMD. And then Putin used them against us in Salisbury.
If we'd shown strength and moral courage then, and shown that the use of chemical weapons was wrong and would get a reaction from civilised nations, he might just have not grabbed Crimea less than a year later.
We as good as told him that we would not react.
..except over the dinner table with a few select friends.
Labour membership now is the most centrist it has been since 2005.
As we're already seeing, Truss is likely to be a polarising figure and those who support her will be with her to the very end (and perhaps beyond).
If a post-Government Conservative Opposition is still seen to be following policies akin to Truss/Kwarteng it will be hugely beneficial to Starmer in holding together any alternative grouping of parties as, pace Orwell, none of them will want to see "Jones" back.
I don't mind what vision people have for the UK as long as they love it.