Yet that 17% are the key swing voters given Yes and No about equal. Devomax was what got No to 51% effectively in the second Quebec independence referendum in 1995.
Plus rejoining the EU now means a hard border with England where most Scottish exports go
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
I guess it will have to be "Yes, we've f**ked everything up, but Labour will just make it all even worse" ?
Which is why I think Labour will win a comfortable Majority
There is nothing positive that the Tories can offer, their record is an abysmal. How can anyone trust them when they swing so violently between opposing policies.
I am not sure “Yes we shat the bed, but we’ve cleaned some of the sheets, ignore the smell, get into bed with us again” is all that compelling.
The latest opinion poll Baxtered would give Labour a majority of over 300.
I look forward to the a thread header setting out the case for what I think is the likeliest outcome: tory annihilation.
The re-emergence of the Faragists on the right only adds to the tory woes. There's a reason that the young guns are leaving parliament. They think it's all over.
Don't get high on your own supply. We are still in the mid-terms.
The writing's on the wall. The tory MPs know it. 18 months to go at the most and they're heading for a cull.
Been here, done that. It's 1992-97 but 1000x worse for the tories. These are the facts of the polls. The dye is cast. It was back then and only the fools failed to allow the penny to drop inside their heads.
It's over. The Truss farce was the final nail.
Who?
How soon we forget.
Sunak and Hunt are in charge. The Tories' election prospects depend upon how they manage the CoL crisis - and whether the voters think Starmer would have done any better. Scant evidence of that so far.
Lol
Labour 24% lead in the latest poll.
But you keep taking those blue pills MM
The current Wikiworm has the Conservatives on 25 percent.
Summer 1995 was the summer of put up or shut up. Before that, the Conservative Wikiworm was 24 percent, after it was 28 percent.
We talk a lot about how Starmer is no Blair, and he isn't. The SNP has hoovered up a lot of traditionally Labour seats.
But Sunak is doing roughly as badly as Major was two years before his defeat. And Britain isn't going to Boom over the next two years in a way that the voters will notice.
Which is why announcements like Deena Davidson's pull us up a bit short when probably they shouldn't. On UNS, a hundred seats fall before hers, but it already looks a hopeless case.
Anything can happen at backgammon, sure, but mostly it doesn't.
Sturgeon and the independence campaign just need to accept that no means no.
I don’t agree with that. If you believe in something, you should fight for it. Votes for women, same sex marriage, VAR, Scottish Independence, whatever. Currently, in my worthless opinion, the case for a new referendum, nor independence, has been made. Polling consistently is not in favour of independence, and certainly not by a significant majority. There is also the coin toss issue. How many times do you get at throwing the coin in the air to hope for the right result? As with Brexit, this isn’t a small change, it’s a huge one, and one that would be hard if not impossible to reverse should opinion change in the following years (pace Brexit right now). But yes, if the SNP and Sturgeon want to keep campaigning, as long as it is with their own money, let them. Same for those who want the U.K. to rejoin the EU. And those who want VAR scrapped.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
The latest opinion poll Baxtered would give Labour a majority of over 300.
I look forward to the a thread header setting out the case for what I think is the likeliest outcome: tory annihilation.
The re-emergence of the Faragists on the right only adds to the tory woes. There's a reason that the young guns are leaving parliament. They think it's all over.
Don't get high on your own supply. We are still in the mid-terms.
The writing's on the wall. The tory MPs know it. 18 months to go at the most and they're heading for a cull.
Been here, done that. It's 1992-97 but 1000x worse for the tories. These are the facts of the polls. The dye is cast. It was back then and only the fools failed to allow the penny to drop inside their heads.
It's over. The Truss farce was the final nail.
Who?
How soon we forget.
Sunak and Hunt are in charge. The Tories' election prospects depend upon how they manage the CoL crisis - and whether the voters think Starmer would have done any better. Scant evidence of that so far.
Lol
Labour 24% lead in the latest poll.
But you keep taking those blue pills MM
The current Wikiworm has the Conservatives on 25 percent.
Summer 1995 was the summer of put up or shut up. Before that, the Conservative Wikiworm was 24 percent, after it was 28 percent.
We talk a lot about how Starmer is no Blair, and he isn't. The SNP has hoovered up a lot of traditionally Labour seats.
But Sunak is doing roughly as badly as Major was two years before his defeat. And Britain isn't going to Boom over the next two years in a way that the voters will notice.
Which is why announcements like Deena Davidson's pull us up a bit short when probably they shouldn't. On UNS, a hundred seats fall before hers, but it already looks a hopeless case.
Anything can happen at backgammon, sure, but mostly it doesn't.
Sunak is also doing as badly as Brown polled in 2008 and Starmer is polling little better than Cameron at the same time, still below where Blair was polling in 1995
If you want to chuck the Tories out of Westminster…..vote Labour….
Where have you been since the 1950s? Voting Labour does nothing at all in the current situation, in particular, bvut is more likely to see more Tories in Scottish constituencies. And as for the rUK, that's rather the point.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
“Yes”, Musk said in a tweet when asked if he would support DeSantis in 2024, after suggesting he had not found his ideal candidate among Democrats.
Twitter owner Elon Musk is seen with the Twitter blue authentication badge. Elon Musk to launch new blue, gold and grey Twitter ticks Read more “My preference for the 2024 presidency is someone sensible and centrist. I had hoped that would the case for the Biden administration, but have been disappointed so far,” Musk tweeted...
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"war on woke", like so many things, raises the question "why hasn't any progress been made on this in the last 14 years". Still, maybe Lab and the LDs will do them a favour and spend the whole campaign going on about transsexuals and racism again.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
Trouble is rather a lot of people would like to have a house in the first place, and the Tories have done their best to kick away the ladder and set fire to it.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"war on woke", like so many things, raises the question "why hasn't any progress been made on this in the last 14 years". Still, maybe Lab and the LDs will do them a favour and spend the whole campaign going on about transsexuals and racism again.
Did someone forget about controlling the migrant hordes* on the beaches and in the hills?
*Not my expression, but that of the Tory tabloids passim.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
Trouble is rather a lot of people would like to have a house in the first place, and the Tories have done their best to kick away the ladder and set fire to it.
And that is sinking in with some of them. Mainly the stand down at the next election lot, at a guess.
Sturgeon and the independence campaign just need to accept that no means no.
I don’t agree with that. If you believe in something, you should fight for it. Votes for women, same sex marriage, VAR, Scottish Independence, whatever. Currently, in my worthless opinion, the case for a new referendum, nor independence, has been made. Polling consistently is not in favour of independence, and certainly not by a significant majority. There is also the coin toss issue. How many times do you get at throwing the coin in the air to hope for the right result? As with Brexit, this isn’t a small change, it’s a huge one, and one that would be hard if not impossible to reverse should opinion change in the following years (pace Brexit right now). But yes, if the SNP and Sturgeon want to keep campaigning, as long as it is with their own money, let them. Same for those who want the U.K. to rejoin the EU. And those who want VAR scrapped.
Of course they can campaign for what ever they like, the brutal reality is that the Scots voted No and look likely to do so again. The SNP wins votes not just for independence.
How the SNP goes from here is interesting. Sooner or later the electorate will grow sick of them , as they do any party who has been in power too long. The independence movement should be playing a long game.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
Someome phoned the right person?
And, in part, Mr Kwarteng's decisions, it seems [edit: poissibly not his tbf, but the story is unclear]. Liabilities linked with transferring the company to some other one.
Russian propaganda using same actors and actresses over and over again is by far something new. They just do this so blatantly that it is an insult of anyone’s intelligence.
It saves money on COVID-19 testing for people who are going to be within 10 metres of the dear leader.
More likely that actors or party officials, whoever these guys are, are going to be considerably more sympathetic to the fuhrer than actual families of dead Russian soldiers.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
Someome phoned the right person?
And, in part, Mr Kwarteng's decisions, it seems [edit: poissibly not his tbf, but the story is unclear]. Liabilities linked with transferring the company to some other one.
Intetesting, but I still don't understand why Bulb was 'nationalised' in the first place. It's just an energy company buying and selling energy - many have gone bust. It wasn't pulling oil out or making windmills turn or doing anything essential.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
I guess it will have to be "Yes, we've f**ked everything up, but Labour will just make it all even worse" ?
Which is why I think Labour will win a comfortable Majority
There is nothing positive that the Tories can offer, their record is an abysmal. How can anyone trust them when they swing so violently between opposing policies.
I am not sure “Yes we shat the bed, but we’ve cleaned some of the sheets, ignore the smell, get into bed with us again” is all that compelling.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
I guess it will have to be "Yes, we've f**ked everything up, but Labour will just make it all even worse" ?
Which is why I think Labour will win a comfortable Majority
There is nothing positive that the Tories can offer, their record is an abysmal. How can anyone trust them when they swing so violently between opposing policies.
I am not sure “Yes we shat the bed, but we’ve cleaned some of the sheets, ignore the smell, get into bed with us again” is all that compelling.
I asked a former Tory leader the other day what the Tory sales pitch could be at the next election, and they couldn't offer one.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
Yet that 17% are the key swing voters given Yes and No about equal. Devomax was what got No to 51% effectively in the second Quebec independence referendum in 1995.
Plus rejoining the EU now means a hard border with England where most Scottish exports go
Yes, sadly as with Trumpism and Brexit there is a hard border between two positions where there isn't a compromise available. The compromise is the least attractive position for everyone.
Devomax may have been a safe haven pre Brexit, but not now.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
🔥Wow. Surprisingly refreshing take from Mhairi Black who, when asked directly by @untribalnews about my statement this week that Nicola Sturgeon et al remarks re Supreme Ct are out of the Trump playbook, said she agrees with me.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
I guess it will have to be "Yes, we've f**ked everything up, but Labour will just make it all even worse" ?
Just as baffling, what will Labour run on given there isn't any more public money to waste? "Taxes are too low" is a pretty difficult sell right now.
Sturgeon and the independence campaign just need to accept that no means no.
OK Hitler
That's a bit harsh. I mean, yes the authoritarian tendencies and the manipulation of the truth are plain for us to see, but Sturgeon's not really comparable to Hitler.
Sturgeon and the independence campaign just need to accept that no means no.
I don’t agree with that. If you believe in something, you should fight for it. Votes for women, same sex marriage, VAR, Scottish Independence, whatever. Currently, in my worthless opinion, the case for a new referendum, nor independence, has been made. Polling consistently is not in favour of independence, and certainly not by a significant majority. There is also the coin toss issue. How many times do you get at throwing the coin in the air to hope for the right result? As with Brexit, this isn’t a small change, it’s a huge one, and one that would be hard if not impossible to reverse should opinion change in the following years (pace Brexit right now). But yes, if the SNP and Sturgeon want to keep campaigning, as long as it is with their own money, let them. Same for those who want the U.K. to rejoin the EU. And those who want VAR scrapped.
Of course they can campaign for what ever they like, the brutal reality is that the Scots voted No and look likely to do so again. The SNP wins votes not just for independence.
How the SNP goes from here is interesting. Sooner or later the electorate will grow sick of them , as they do any party who has been in power too long. The independence movement should be playing a long game.
Interesting analysis Malc posted upthread from an independence supporter who is not a fan of Sturgeon.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
Interesting that it theorises the big thing that surprised Sturgeon was the Lord Advocate not signing off on her draft referendum bill, as it claims that would have bought her more time to slowly pass the bill before a challenge was brought.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
I'm a bit surprised at how badly this is playing for NS is some circles. I'd have thought that trying for a new Indyref but being cruelly denied by the bewigged supreme justices of London was a masterstroke for her.
We had a circular on this recently on what to look out for, as there were apparently a number of cases amongst former Manston internees. We have 140 in an old hotel in Leicester.
Sturgeon and the independence campaign just need to accept that no means no.
OK Hitler
That's a bit harsh. I mean, yes the authoritarian tendencies and the manipulation of the truth are plain for us to see, but Sturgeon's not really comparable to Hitler.
It must be noted that they have never been seen in the same room however.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
I guess it will have to be "Yes, we've f**ked everything up, but Labour will just make it all even worse" ?
Just as baffling, what will Labour run on given there isn't any more public money to waste? "Taxes are too low" is a pretty difficult sell right now.
Labour will run on 'Time for a change'.
They won't run on: Detail of relationship with EU. How to deal with SNP (except 'No'). How to manage interest rates, deal with debt and deficit, balancing current account, increasing/lowering taxes, favouring workers/younger benefits folk over pensioners.
Lots of room for sunlit uplands in the 2030s and 2040s.
The other thing (which gets my vote at the moment) is that they are possibly a less corrupting influence than the Tories have been recently.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
I guess it will have to be "Yes, we've f**ked everything up, but Labour will just make it all even worse" ?
Which is why I think Labour will win a comfortable Majority
There is nothing positive that the Tories can offer, their record is an abysmal. How can anyone trust them when they swing so violently between opposing policies.
I am not sure “Yes we shat the bed, but we’ve cleaned some of the sheets, ignore the smell, get into bed with us again” is all that compelling.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
I guess it will have to be "Yes, we've f**ked everything up, but Labour will just make it all even worse" ?
Which is why I think Labour will win a comfortable Majority
There is nothing positive that the Tories can offer, their record is an abysmal. How can anyone trust them when they swing so violently between opposing policies.
I am not sure “Yes we shat the bed, but we’ve cleaned some of the sheets, ignore the smell, get into bed with us again” is all that compelling.
I asked a former Tory leader the other day what the Tory sales pitch could be at the next election, and they couldn't offer one.
Which may be other factor behind some of these standing down announcements.
Defending the indefensible is part of the job description for a frontline politician.
But everyone (yes, even Boris) has a line beyond which they can't being themselves to go, and the current government is operating in the space. The whiplash from publicly backing Johnson, then Truss, then Sunak, over a few months, must be hideous.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Not too big to fail. To big for another company to bail out without putting itself at risk, so nobody would do it.
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
If the US draws against Iran, then the US has 3 points, and Iran 4, with the US having zero goal difference and Iran -4.
If Wales then beats England 4-0, then they move up to 4 points as well, with +2 goal difference, while England drops 0 goal difference. (A 3-0 victory would not be enough, as England would then win on goals scored. However, something like 6-3 would be enough for Wales I think.)
If the US draws Iran, then any victory by Wales sends them through due to Iran's rubbish goal difference.
F. F. S.
Football teams are plural, not singular.
I know you live in LA but you don’t need to adopt their grammar.
I have said this over and again.
Even Nick Palmer - Nick Palmer of Godalming, Surrey, England - was doing this recently.
Somebody make it stop. 🤮
Shouldn't immigrants integrate with their host society?
Honestly, both plural and singular can be correct for this, per the official rules of the language.
No. Although grammarians might say that, plural is the only form sanctioned by usage here. No style guides would allow singular.
Also on meaning intended. Are they acting collectively “the team are playing well” or individually “the team is not passing the ball enough”. Whichever, don’t mix collective & singular in the same sentence.
My point is that in British English usage, it’s plural
If the US draws against Iran, then the US has 3 points, and Iran 4, with the US having zero goal difference and Iran -4.
If Wales then beats England 4-0, then they move up to 4 points as well, with +2 goal difference, while England drops 0 goal difference. (A 3-0 victory would not be enough, as England would then win on goals scored. However, something like 6-3 would be enough for Wales I think.)
If the US draws Iran, then any victory by Wales sends them through due to Iran's rubbish goal difference.
F. F. S.
Football teams are plural, not singular.
I know you live in LA but you don’t need to adopt their grammar.
I have said this over and again.
Even Nick Palmer - Nick Palmer of Godalming, Surrey, England - was doing this recently.
Somebody make it stop. 🤮
Shouldn't immigrants integrate with their host society?
Honestly, both plural and singular can be correct for this, per the official rules of the language.
No. Although grammarians might say that, plural is the only form sanctioned by usage here. No style guides would allow singular.
Also on meaning intended. Are they acting collectively “the team are playing well” or individually “the team is not passing the ball enough”. Whichever, don’t mix collective & singular in the same sentence.
My point is that in British English usage, sports teams are plural. The singular that slips in - only on PB - grates.
No, in British English the usual approach is for singular usage when the team is acting as a unit and plural usage when acting individually.
No. England are playing well. England are playing poorly.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
If the US draws against Iran, then the US has 3 points, and Iran 4, with the US having zero goal difference and Iran -4.
If Wales then beats England 4-0, then they move up to 4 points as well, with +2 goal difference, while England drops 0 goal difference. (A 3-0 victory would not be enough, as England would then win on goals scored. However, something like 6-3 would be enough for Wales I think.)
If the US draws Iran, then any victory by Wales sends them through due to Iran's rubbish goal difference.
F. F. S.
Football teams are plural, not singular.
I know you live in LA but you don’t need to adopt their grammar.
I have said this over and again.
Even Nick Palmer - Nick Palmer of Godalming, Surrey, England - was doing this recently.
Somebody make it stop. 🤮
Shouldn't immigrants integrate with their host society?
Honestly, both plural and singular can be correct for this, per the official rules of the language.
No. Although grammarians might say that, plural is the only form sanctioned by usage here. No style guides would allow singular.
Also on meaning intended. Are they acting collectively “the team are playing well” or individually “the team is not passing the ball enough”. Whichever, don’t mix collective & singular in the same sentence.
My point is that in British English usage, it’s plural
If the US draws against Iran, then the US has 3 points, and Iran 4, with the US having zero goal difference and Iran -4.
If Wales then beats England 4-0, then they move up to 4 points as well, with +2 goal difference, while England drops 0 goal difference. (A 3-0 victory would not be enough, as England would then win on goals scored. However, something like 6-3 would be enough for Wales I think.)
If the US draws Iran, then any victory by Wales sends them through due to Iran's rubbish goal difference.
F. F. S.
Football teams are plural, not singular.
I know you live in LA but you don’t need to adopt their grammar.
I have said this over and again.
Even Nick Palmer - Nick Palmer of Godalming, Surrey, England - was doing this recently.
Somebody make it stop. 🤮
Shouldn't immigrants integrate with their host society?
Honestly, both plural and singular can be correct for this, per the official rules of the language.
No. Although grammarians might say that, plural is the only form sanctioned by usage here. No style guides would allow singular.
Also on meaning intended. Are they acting collectively “the team are playing well” or individually “the team is not passing the ball enough”. Whichever, don’t mix collective & singular in the same sentence.
My point is that in British English usage, sports teams are plural. The singular that slips in - only on PB - grates.
No, in British English the usual approach is for singular usage when the team is acting as a unit and plural usage when acting individually.
No. England are playing well. England are playing poorly.
If only England were functioning, they would meet Scott Fitzgerald's definition of an artist.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Not too big to fail. To big for another company to bail out without putting itself at risk, so nobody would do it.
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
But IANAE and I could easily be wrong.
So why could it not just go bust? Its creditors would have been buggered and its customers would have gone somewhere else is how it works. I just don't understand why on earth it was nationalised (not demanding answers from you btw!).
If the US draws against Iran, then the US has 3 points, and Iran 4, with the US having zero goal difference and Iran -4.
If Wales then beats England 4-0, then they move up to 4 points as well, with +2 goal difference, while England drops 0 goal difference. (A 3-0 victory would not be enough, as England would then win on goals scored. However, something like 6-3 would be enough for Wales I think.)
If the US draws Iran, then any victory by Wales sends them through due to Iran's rubbish goal difference.
F. F. S.
Football teams are plural, not singular.
I know you live in LA but you don’t need to adopt their grammar.
I have said this over and again.
Even Nick Palmer - Nick Palmer of Godalming, Surrey, England - was doing this recently.
Somebody make it stop. 🤮
Shouldn't immigrants integrate with their host society?
Honestly, both plural and singular can be correct for this, per the official rules of the language.
No. Although grammarians might say that, plural is the only form sanctioned by usage here. No style guides would allow singular.
Also on meaning intended. Are they acting collectively “the team are playing well” or individually “the team is not passing the ball enough”. Whichever, don’t mix collective & singular in the same sentence.
My point is that in British English usage, it’s plural
If the US draws against Iran, then the US has 3 points, and Iran 4, with the US having zero goal difference and Iran -4.
If Wales then beats England 4-0, then they move up to 4 points as well, with +2 goal difference, while England drops 0 goal difference. (A 3-0 victory would not be enough, as England would then win on goals scored. However, something like 6-3 would be enough for Wales I think.)
If the US draws Iran, then any victory by Wales sends them through due to Iran's rubbish goal difference.
F. F. S.
Football teams are plural, not singular.
I know you live in LA but you don’t need to adopt their grammar.
I have said this over and again.
Even Nick Palmer - Nick Palmer of Godalming, Surrey, England - was doing this recently.
Somebody make it stop. 🤮
Shouldn't immigrants integrate with their host society?
Honestly, both plural and singular can be correct for this, per the official rules of the language.
No. Although grammarians might say that, plural is the only form sanctioned by usage here. No style guides would allow singular.
Also on meaning intended. Are they acting collectively “the team are playing well” or individually “the team is not passing the ball enough”. Whichever, don’t mix collective & singular in the same sentence.
My point is that in British English usage, sports teams are plural. The singular that slips in - only on PB - grates.
No, in British English the usual approach is for singular usage when the team is acting as a unit and plural usage when acting individually.
No. England are playing well. England are playing poorly.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Not too big to fail. To big for another company to bail out without putting itself at risk, so nobody would do it.
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
But IANAE and I could easily be wrong.
So why could it not just go bust? Its creditors would have been buggered and its customers would have gone somewhere else is how it works. I just don't understand why on earth it was nationalised (not demanding answers from you btw!).
Because if it had gone bust, their customers would not have received power.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
It's not that I wouldn't support a war on woke. It's that I've seen no evidence whatsoever over the past 14 years that the Tories have any intention of fighting it. The only card they have to play is that they are slightly grumpier about rolling over to the forces of woke than the other parties.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Not too big to fail. To big for another company to bail out without putting itself at risk, so nobody would do it.
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
But IANAE and I could easily be wrong.
So why could it not just go bust? Its creditors would have been buggered and its customers would have gone somewhere else is how it works. I just don't understand why on earth it was nationalised (not demanding answers from you btw!).
Because if it had gone bust, their customers would not have received power.
I find it easy to believe that other companies didn't want their debts, less likely that they didn't want their customers.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Were Thatcher and Major simply nuts too when they used to say if SNP had a majority of the Scottish MPs that would be sufficient for independence?
Are you suggesting that Thatcher was not nuts? If so, you must be a rara avis on the political left!
For Thatcher and even Major it was inconceivable that the SNP would ever hold the majority of Scottish seats so they gave it no more thought. And yet a Scotland which had elected an absolute majority for the SNP in a largely proportional Parliament voted no fairly comfortably.
The latest opinion poll Baxtered would give Labour a majority of over 300.
I look forward to the a thread header setting out the case for what I think is the likeliest outcome: tory annihilation.
The re-emergence of the Faragists on the right only adds to the tory woes. There's a reason that the young guns are leaving parliament. They think it's all over.
Don't get high on your own supply. We are still in the mid-terms.
The writing's on the wall. The tory MPs know it. 18 months to go at the most and they're heading for a cull.
Been here, done that. It's 1992-97 but 1000x worse for the tories. These are the facts of the polls. The dye is cast. It was back then and only the fools failed to allow the penny to drop inside their heads.
It's over. The Truss farce was the final nail.
Who?
How soon we forget.
Sunak and Hunt are in charge. The Tories' election prospects depend upon how they manage the CoL crisis - and whether the voters think Starmer would have done any better. Scant evidence of that so far.
Sunak is a significant improvement on Johnson and Truss but I genuinely believe you are underestimating the damage they have done to the Tory brand. People aren't going to forget the shambles of the last 3 years in a hurry. The polls are barely shifting.
Just had one of those silly texts asking me to enter my Apple Pay number to unblock my account. Number was 078422095. 07 (broken up so nobody clicks it by accident).
The latest opinion poll Baxtered would give Labour a majority of over 300.
I look forward to the a thread header setting out the case for what I think is the likeliest outcome: tory annihilation.
The re-emergence of the Faragists on the right only adds to the tory woes. There's a reason that the young guns are leaving parliament. They think it's all over.
Don't get high on your own supply. We are still in the mid-terms.
The writing's on the wall. The tory MPs know it. 18 months to go at the most and they're heading for a cull.
Been here, done that. It's 1992-97 but 1000x worse for the tories. These are the facts of the polls. The dye is cast. It was back then and only the fools failed to allow the penny to drop inside their heads.
It's over. The Truss farce was the final nail.
Who?
How soon we forget.
Sunak and Hunt are in charge. The Tories' election prospects depend upon how they manage the CoL crisis - and whether the voters think Starmer would have done any better. Scant evidence of that so far.
Sunak is a significant improvement on Johnson and Truss but I genuinely believe you are underestimating the damage they have done to the Tory brand. People aren't going to forget the shambles of the last 3 years in a hurry. The polls are barely shifting.
That's because he's crap. He's already lost a Minister and another looks iffy. The Autumn statement is a disaster. He's delaying votes because his MPs will rebel.
You read this, and think what *on earth* is the Labour party doing excluding a female campaigner who has done so much for women from its membership. (I think many of Labour’s female MPs feel that quite strongly too.)…
While women like this are not welcome in Keir Starmer’s Labour party, there are many who will raise eyebrows about its self-professed commitment to women’s rights.
You get one guess why Labour would exclude a working class socialist woman….she’s the campaigner who compiles the list of women murdered by men read out by Jess Philips in the House of Commons every year.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
It's not that I wouldn't support a war on woke. It's that I've seen no evidence whatsoever over the past 14 years that the Tories have any intention of fighting it. The only card they have to play is that they are slightly grumpier about rolling over to the forces of woke than the other parties.
I think it's more that they can't - there's a limit to what can be done through votes in parliament alone.
Most of the professional middle-class supports it, or at least acquiesces in it, and they run everything. The generation coming up positively revel in it like a theology.
There is a solution: advance a consistent political argument against it in public debate and the media for several years until public opinion starts to shift, like Margaret Thatcher did in the late 70s/early 80s, but our politicians have neither the talent nor patience to do that these days.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
It's not that I wouldn't support a war on woke. It's that I've seen no evidence whatsoever over the past 14 years that the Tories have any intention of fighting it. The only card they have to play is that they are slightly grumpier about rolling over to the forces of woke than the other parties.
I think it's more that they can't - there's a limit to what can be done through votes in parliament alone.
Most of the professional middle-class supports it, or at least acquiesces in it, and they run everything. The generation coming up positively revel in it like a theology.
There is a solution: advance a consistent political argument against it in public debate and the media for several years until public opinion starts to shift, like Margaret Thatcher did in the late 70s/early 80s, but our politicians have neither the talent nor patience to do that these days.
But what is woke? It’s never been completely clear what we’re supposed to be getting angry about. It feels like a catch all for things that right wingers do not like.
If the US draws against Iran, then the US has 3 points, and Iran 4, with the US having zero goal difference and Iran -4.
If Wales then beats England 4-0, then they move up to 4 points as well, with +2 goal difference, while England drops 0 goal difference. (A 3-0 victory would not be enough, as England would then win on goals scored. However, something like 6-3 would be enough for Wales I think.)
If the US draws Iran, then any victory by Wales sends them through due to Iran's rubbish goal difference.
F. F. S.
Football teams are plural, not singular.
I know you live in LA but you don’t need to adopt their grammar.
I have said this over and again.
Even Nick Palmer - Nick Palmer of Godalming, Surrey, England - was doing this recently.
Somebody make it stop. 🤮
Shouldn't immigrants integrate with their host society?
Honestly, both plural and singular can be correct for this, per the official rules of the language.
No. Although grammarians might say that, plural is the only form sanctioned by usage here. No style guides would allow singular.
Also on meaning intended. Are they acting collectively “the team are playing well” or individually “the team is not passing the ball enough”. Whichever, don’t mix collective & singular in the same sentence.
My point is that in British English usage, it’s plural
If the US draws against Iran, then the US has 3 points, and Iran 4, with the US having zero goal difference and Iran -4.
If Wales then beats England 4-0, then they move up to 4 points as well, with +2 goal difference, while England drops 0 goal difference. (A 3-0 victory would not be enough, as England would then win on goals scored. However, something like 6-3 would be enough for Wales I think.)
If the US draws Iran, then any victory by Wales sends them through due to Iran's rubbish goal difference.
F. F. S.
Football teams are plural, not singular.
I know you live in LA but you don’t need to adopt their grammar.
I have said this over and again.
Even Nick Palmer - Nick Palmer of Godalming, Surrey, England - was doing this recently.
Somebody make it stop. 🤮
Shouldn't immigrants integrate with their host society?
Honestly, both plural and singular can be correct for this, per the official rules of the language.
No. Although grammarians might say that, plural is the only form sanctioned by usage here. No style guides would allow singular.
Also on meaning intended. Are they acting collectively “the team are playing well” or individually “the team is not passing the ball enough”. Whichever, don’t mix collective & singular in the same sentence.
My point is that in British English usage, sports teams are plural. The singular that slips in - only on PB - grates.
No, in British English the usual approach is for singular usage when the team is acting as a unit and plural usage when acting individually.
No. England are playing well. England are playing poorly.
Just saying no isn't a convincing argument. Go look it up.
The two examples you give would (arguably) take plural usage, because the playing is done individually. But "England is poised to reach the final" is the correct usage, because the team can only reach the final as a unit. Similarly, "England is facing elimination".
Interesting that it theorises the big thing that surprised Sturgeon was the Lord Advocate not signing off on her draft referendum bill, as it claims that would have bought her more time to slowly pass the bill before a challenge was brought.
And on something else Sturgeon hasn’t thought through:
But having chosen a Lord Advocate on what people who know more about this than me believe to be the basis of who was most likely to approve her Gender Reform legislation, it seems never to have occurred to Sturgeon that she might be blocked from introducing a Referendum Bill. That would (and has) cut 18 months out of her careful choreography. When it happened it was a disaster for her.
The latest opinion poll Baxtered would give Labour a majority of over 300.
I look forward to the a thread header setting out the case for what I think is the likeliest outcome: tory annihilation.
The re-emergence of the Faragists on the right only adds to the tory woes. There's a reason that the young guns are leaving parliament. They think it's all over.
Don't get high on your own supply. We are still in the mid-terms.
The writing's on the wall. The tory MPs know it. 18 months to go at the most and they're heading for a cull.
Been here, done that. It's 1992-97 but 1000x worse for the tories. These are the facts of the polls. The dye is cast. It was back then and only the fools failed to allow the penny to drop inside their heads.
It's over. The Truss farce was the final nail.
Who?
How soon we forget.
Sunak and Hunt are in charge. The Tories' election prospects depend upon how they manage the CoL crisis - and whether the voters think Starmer would have done any better. Scant evidence of that so far.
Sunak is a significant improvement on Johnson and Truss but I genuinely believe you are underestimating the damage they have done to the Tory brand. People aren't going to forget the shambles of the last 3 years in a hurry. The polls are barely shifting.
That's because he's crap. He's already lost a Minister and another looks iffy. The Autumn statement is a disaster. He's delaying votes because his MPs will rebel.
He's been dealt a crap hand as well. Would Maggie in her pomp be able to herd the bag of cats that is the modern Conservative Party?
Sunak is distinctly "meh" as Prime Minister. The reason he's got the gig is that he's neither hopelessly morally compromised (Johnson) or utterly detached from reality (Truss).
Sunak is the best they've got. And so we're all stuck in this stasis for two years.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Not too big to fail. To big for another company to bail out without putting itself at risk, so nobody would do it.
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
But IANAE and I could easily be wrong.
So why could it not just go bust? Its creditors would have been buggered and its customers would have gone somewhere else is how it works. I just don't understand why on earth it was nationalised (not demanding answers from you btw!).
Because if it had gone bust, their customers would not have received power.
Couldn't they have found an alternative supplier? I'm not hot on the energy market.
Yet that 17% are the key swing voters given Yes and No about equal. Devomax was what got No to 51% effectively in the second Quebec independence referendum in 1995.
Plus rejoining the EU now means a hard border with England where most Scottish exports go
Yes, sadly as with Trumpism and Brexit there is a hard border between two positions where there isn't a compromise available. The compromise is the least attractive position for everyone.
Devomax may have been a safe haven pre Brexit, but not now.
It still is, especially as it would likely be a Labour government proposing it as a midway between Conservative status quo and SNP independence
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
It's not that I wouldn't support a war on woke. It's that I've seen no evidence whatsoever over the past 14 years that the Tories have any intention of fighting it. The only card they have to play is that they are slightly grumpier about rolling over to the forces of woke than the other parties.
I think it's more that they can't - there's a limit to what can be done through votes in parliament alone.
Most of the professional middle-class supports it, or at least acquiesces in it, and they run everything. The generation coming up positively revel in it like a theology.
There is a solution: advance a consistent political argument against it in public debate and the media for several years until public opinion starts to shift, like Margaret Thatcher did in the late 70s/early 80s, but our politicians have neither the talent nor patience to do that these days.
Braverman or Badenoch if they become the Leader of the Conservatives in likely opposition would fight a war on woke. Farage already is, as are Trump and DeSantis in the US and Meloni in Italy.
Conservative leader Poilievre in Canada and Liberal leader Dutton in Australia have also fought wars on woke
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Not too big to fail. To big for another company to bail out without putting itself at risk, so nobody would do it.
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
But IANAE and I could easily be wrong.
So why could it not just go bust? Its creditors would have been buggered and its customers would have gone somewhere else is how it works. I just don't understand why on earth it was nationalised (not demanding answers from you btw!).
Because if it had gone bust, their customers would not have received power.
Couldn't they have found an alternative supplier? I'm not hot on the energy market.
Could they have found it immediately? It normally takes some time to switch suppliers. Who supplies them in the meanwhile?
Has anyone seen Kieffer Moore in the same room as Leondamus?
I find Kieffer Moore irritating through no fault of his own. No commentator ever calls him just Moore, it’s always Kieffer Moore. For years I thought he was called Kieffermore, or even Keith Amor. Never once is it just Moore. And I don’t know why.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
Trouble is rather a lot of people would like to have a house in the first place, and the Tories have done their best to kick away the ladder and set fire to it.
Most over 39s are home owners still, hence the Conservatives won a landslide in 2019 despite the majority of under 39s voting Labour
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Not too big to fail. To big for another company to bail out without putting itself at risk, so nobody would do it.
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
But IANAE and I could easily be wrong.
So why could it not just go bust? Its creditors would have been buggered and its customers would have gone somewhere else is how it works. I just don't understand why on earth it was nationalised (not demanding answers from you btw!).
Because if it had gone bust, their customers would not have received power.
Couldn't they have found an alternative supplier? I'm not hot on the energy market.
Could they have found it immediately? It normally takes some time to switch suppliers. Who supplies them in the meanwhile?
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
It is a good article. The key failure is the failure to run the country in anything like a competent manner. Her cabinet were maybe not up to it and Nicola was never that interested but the plan should have been to persuade the unsure that we were indeed fit to rule ourselves and indeed could do it better. At a minimum the good Scots finding of not proven comes to mind.
Just had one of those silly texts asking me to enter my Apple Pay number to unblock my account. Number was 078422095. 07 (broken up so nobody clicks it by accident).
Should you really be publishing your Apple account number on here?
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Were Thatcher and Major simply nuts too when they used to say if SNP had a majority of the Scottish MPs that would be sufficient for independence?
Interesting that it was Thatcher and Major who oversaw the weakening of the Union in the first place who thought that way. Thatcher probably believed that if they didn't like Thatcherism then in the long run they might as well go. Others among us might think that if a substantial part of the country is virulently opposed to a political doctrine we should ditch the doctrine.
Has anyone seen Kieffer Moore in the same room as Leondamus?
I find Kieffer Moore irritating through no fault of his own. No commentator ever calls him just Moore, it’s always Kieffer Moore. For years I thought he was called Kieffermore, or even Keith Amor. Never once is it just Moore. And I don’t know why.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Were Thatcher and Major simply nuts too when they used to say if SNP had a majority of the Scottish MPs that would be sufficient for independence?
Are you suggesting that Thatcher was not nuts? If so, you must be a rara avis on the political left!
Like Wilson, there was a tipping point near the end of her term. Much as I spent my childhood disliking Thatcher she was nowhere close to Johnson/Truss/Sunak levels of shitiness.
Just an idle thought, but perhaps the "war on woke" enthusiasts should reflect on their language? How about "let's moderate extreme wokeness" or something similar but more catchy? Is there really a need for a "war"? Even some of the anti-woke brigade may find "war" a bit of a turn-off.
Can anyone tell me why there was a taxpayer bailout of Bulb Energy? I don't get it. £6.5 billion apparently. Why?
AIUI roughly, when it went bust there was no cheaper or easier way of keeping supplies going to its customers, as it was too big for any other company to take over safely.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
That's extraordinary.
Not the KK did something stupid, but that 'Bulb' was apparently too big to fail. I must admit I struggle to believe that.
Not too big to fail. To big for another company to bail out without putting itself at risk, so nobody would do it.
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
But IANAE and I could easily be wrong.
So why could it not just go bust? Its creditors would have been buggered and its customers would have gone somewhere else is how it works. I just don't understand why on earth it was nationalised (not demanding answers from you btw!).
Because if it had gone bust, their customers would not have received power.
I’m not sure that’s quite right. Stopping receiving electricity means cutting off the physical supply, how would that happen? Go door to door, hunting out Bulb customers? In reality when we switch suppliers, it’s still the same electrons. What would happen is a financial disaster where the suppliers would not get paid and would then be short of money themselves to pay the generators.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Were Thatcher and Major simply nuts too when they used to say if SNP had a majority of the Scottish MPs that would be sufficient for independence?
Interesting that it was Thatcher and Major who oversaw the weakening of the Union in the first place who thought that way. Thatcher probably believed that if they didn't like Thatcherism then in the long run they might as well go. Others among us might think that if a substantial part of the country is virulently opposed to a political doctrine we should ditch the doctrine.
Yet the SNP never won anywhere near a majority of Scottish MPs under Thatcher. It was Blair creating Holyrood that saw the SNP win most MSPs in 2007 and then it was under Cameron the SNP won most Scottish MPs in 2015.
Major was quite popular in Scotland initially, winning 11 Scottish Tory MPs in 1992, more than the 10 Thatcher did in 1987 and the highest number of SCon MPs until May won 13 in 2017
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
It's not that I wouldn't support a war on woke. It's that I've seen no evidence whatsoever over the past 14 years that the Tories have any intention of fighting it. The only card they have to play is that they are slightly grumpier about rolling over to the forces of woke than the other parties.
I think it's more that they can't - there's a limit to what can be done through votes in parliament alone.
Most of the professional middle-class supports it, or at least acquiesces in it, and they run everything. The generation coming up positively revel in it like a theology.
There is a solution: advance a consistent political argument against it in public debate and the media for several years until public opinion starts to shift, like Margaret Thatcher did in the late 70s/early 80s, but our politicians have neither the talent nor patience to do that these days.
But what is woke? It’s never been completely clear what we’re supposed to be getting angry about. It feels like a catch all for things that right wingers do not like.
Woke is many things to many people. Generally it’s what is called politeness, but at the extremes it gets occupied by something else. The act of informing people that your preferred pronouns are he/him is polite, demanding all employees do so is not.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
It's not that I wouldn't support a war on woke. It's that I've seen no evidence whatsoever over the past 14 years that the Tories have any intention of fighting it. The only card they have to play is that they are slightly grumpier about rolling over to the forces of woke than the other parties.
I think it's more that they can't - there's a limit to what can be done through votes in parliament alone.
Most of the professional middle-class supports it, or at least acquiesces in it, and they run everything. The generation coming up positively revel in it like a theology.
There is a solution: advance a consistent political argument against it in public debate and the media for several years until public opinion starts to shift, like Margaret Thatcher did in the late 70s/early 80s, but our politicians have neither the talent nor patience to do that these days.
But what is woke? It’s never been completely clear what we’re supposed to be getting angry about. It feels like a catch all for things that right wingers do not like.
I'm thinking of saving a definition on my desktop I can copy and paste into the thread whenever someone asks this.
It's obsessing and wallowing in what identity group an individual sits in, and treating them differently in the perceived power hierarchy of those groups, rather than treating them as an individual.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Were Thatcher and Major simply nuts too when they used to say if SNP had a majority of the Scottish MPs that would be sufficient for independence?
Interesting that it was Thatcher and Major who oversaw the weakening of the Union in the first place who thought that way. Thatcher probably believed that if they didn't like Thatcherism then in the long run they might as well go. Others among us might think that if a substantial part of the country is virulently opposed to a political doctrine we should ditch the doctrine.
Yet the SNP never won anywhere near a majority of Scottish MPs under Thatcher. It was Blair creating Holyrood that saw the SNP win most MSPs in 2007 and then it was under Cameron the SNP won most Scottish MPs in 2015.
Major was quite popular in Scotland initially, winning 11 Scottish Tory MPs in 1992, more than the 10 Thatcher did in 1987 and the highest number of SCon MPs until May won 13 in 2017
of course May won 13 MPs in Scotland cos Davidson was promising the softest of soft Brexits.
🔥Wow. Surprisingly refreshing take from Mhairi Black who, when asked directly by @untribalnews about my statement this week that Nicola Sturgeon et al remarks re Supreme Ct are out of the Trump playbook, said she agrees with me.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
It's not that I wouldn't support a war on woke. It's that I've seen no evidence whatsoever over the past 14 years that the Tories have any intention of fighting it. The only card they have to play is that they are slightly grumpier about rolling over to the forces of woke than the other parties.
I think it's more that they can't - there's a limit to what can be done through votes in parliament alone.
Most of the professional middle-class supports it, or at least acquiesces in it, and they run everything. The generation coming up positively revel in it like a theology.
There is a solution: advance a consistent political argument against it in public debate and the media for several years until public opinion starts to shift, like Margaret Thatcher did in the late 70s/early 80s, but our politicians have neither the talent nor patience to do that these days.
But what is woke? It’s never been completely clear what we’re supposed to be getting angry about. It feels like a catch all for things that right wingers do not like.
I'm thinking of saving a definition on my desktop I can copy and paste into the thread whenever someone asks this.
It's obsessing and wallowing in what identity group an individual sits in, and treating them differently in the perceived power hierarchy of those groups, rather than treating them as an individual.
I profoundly disagree with it.
Sounds like you’re talking about identity politics. The right have done that for years.
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
Trouble is rather a lot of people would like to have a house in the first place, and the Tories have done their best to kick away the ladder and set fire to it.
Most over 39s are home owners still, hence the Conservatives won a landslide in 2019 despite the majority of under 39s voting Labour
And you think that trend is going to improve for the Tories? Hmm
Curious thought experiment is what the Tories will run on at the next election.
The country is an utter mess, don’t let Labour ruin it. Vote for five more years of Conservative stability. Your taxes are the highest they have ever been.
What’s going to be the offer to secure that third/fourth term?
Perhaps "Brexit is in peril", which is why Starmer isn't going there. But by 2024 the overwhelming reply might be "excellent".
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
"War on woke" is dead in the water. Even PB can only manage two enthusiasts. Johnson would have gone on SKS, Savile Enabler, Sunak won't. SKS,Corbyn Promoter is going to be looking a bit elderly by then. Don't Let Labour Screw Up The Recovery, don't believe their whining about no deals with the SNP, don't let them steal your house for IHT.
Trouble is rather a lot of people would like to have a house in the first place, and the Tories have done their best to kick away the ladder and set fire to it.
Most over 39s are home owners still, hence the Conservatives won a landslide in 2019 despite the majority of under 39s voting Labour
Think you need to look up the meaning of 'hence' because if it means that then that also implies the Conservatives will win the next election which certainly is in doubt. 'Get Brexit done' and 'Corbyn' were (in my humble opinion) greater factors.
True as you get older and as you buy property you are more likely to vote Tory as the Stats show (and I assume what you mean), but the word 'hence' is not right. It has a particular meaning which clearly isn't true as otherwise the Tory's would win every election where that was the case and they don't/won't.
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
She has only one option left now , vote for me at general election for a referendum and hope the sheeple will take yet another dose of carrots line, after that she is bust. Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
Her former law professor has described her GE stunt as “simply nuts”;
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
Were Thatcher and Major simply nuts too when they used to say if SNP had a majority of the Scottish MPs that would be sufficient for independence?
Interesting that it was Thatcher and Major who oversaw the weakening of the Union in the first place who thought that way. Thatcher probably believed that if they didn't like Thatcherism then in the long run they might as well go. Others among us might think that if a substantial part of the country is virulently opposed to a political doctrine we should ditch the doctrine.
I’m not sure 8% of the nation is a “substantial part”. As Britain found leaving the EU (five times its size) so Scotland will find leaving the U.K. (ten times its size), “size matters”. And of course the U.K. counts for a substantially bigger proportion of Scotland’s trade than the EU the UK’s. Which is why “Brexit is a disaster, time to leave the U.K.” may not be the killer argument Sturgeon thinks it is. At least the U.K. didn’t have to change its currency on leaving the EU. Which is probably why the SNP have NOT asked the Scottish government to work out what the increased costs associated would be.
Comments
Plus rejoining the EU now means a hard border with England where most Scottish exports go
https://twitter.com/MintRoyale/status/1596126877676371980
Bottom right panel.
Musk is a pretty vile person.
I am not sure “Yes we shat the bed, but we’ve cleaned some of the sheets, ignore the smell, get into bed with us again” is all that compelling.
Summer 1995 was the summer of put up or shut up. Before that, the Conservative Wikiworm was 24 percent, after it was 28 percent.
We talk a lot about how Starmer is no Blair, and he isn't. The SNP has hoovered up a lot of traditionally Labour seats.
But Sunak is doing roughly as badly as Major was two years before his defeat. And Britain isn't going to Boom over the next two years in a way that the voters will
notice.
Which is why announcements like Deena Davidson's pull us up a bit short when probably they shouldn't. On UNS, a hundred seats fall before hers, but it already looks a hopeless case.
Anything can happen at backgammon, sure, but mostly it doesn't.
There is also the coin toss issue. How many times do you get at throwing the coin in the air to hope for the right result? As with Brexit, this isn’t a small change, it’s a huge one, and one that would be hard if not impossible to reverse should opinion change in the following years (pace Brexit right now).
But yes, if the SNP and Sturgeon want to keep campaigning, as long as it is with their own money, let them. Same for those who want the U.K. to rejoin the EU. And those who want VAR scrapped.
Probably "War on woke".
Economically, green shoots and a penny off the tax rate.
(That will be a recycling of the tax taken by freezing thresholds, but it sounds good).
An Early Clue on Trump’s Republican Support
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/11/25/trump-2024-presidential-election-00070677
SNP/Yes leaflets are now going out promoting Indyref2 as a way to "get rid of the toarrieess for good".
Alongside the barely concealed nastiness of this, it shows how lacking in real arguments the Nationalists are. Desperate.
https://twitter.com/realstephenkerr/status/1596425100299227138
If you want to chuck the Tories out of Westminster…..vote Labour….
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/26/elon-musk-says-he-will-back-trump-rival-ron-desantis-in-2024-if-he-runs-for-president
… Musk has said he would support Donald Trump’s arch rival, Ron DeSantis, in 2024 if the Florida governor were to run for president.
“Yes”, Musk said in a tweet when asked if he would support DeSantis in 2024, after suggesting he had not found his ideal candidate among Democrats.
Twitter owner Elon Musk is seen with the Twitter blue authentication badge.
Elon Musk to launch new blue, gold and grey Twitter ticks
Read more
“My preference for the 2024 presidency is someone sensible and centrist. I had hoped that would the case for the Biden administration, but have been disappointed so far,” Musk tweeted...
Still, maybe Lab and the LDs will do them a favour and spend the whole campaign going on about transsexuals and racism again.
*Not my expression, but that of the Tory tabloids passim.
How the SNP goes from here is interesting. Sooner or later the electorate will grow sick of them , as they do any party who has been in power too long. The independence movement should be playing a long game.
And, in part, Mr Kwarteng's decisions, it seems [edit: poissibly not his tbf, but the story is unclear]. Liabilities linked with transferring the company to some other one.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2022/nov/21/what-on-earth-is-going-on-with-the-massive-bulb-bailout
By the time she ‘promised to intend to hold a referendum’ in the ‘first part of the next parliament’, there weren’t many modifiers left for her to shed for the purpose of escalation – her rhetorical ‘dance of the seven veils’ was getting to a point where it needed to lead to some kind of climax.
Devomax may have been a safe haven pre Brexit, but not now.
Fucking LOL.
However, because Dr Kwarteng doesn't approve of hedging, it's had to buy all its power and gas on spot prices which has been rather costly and therefore caused prices to balloon.
Trouble at mill.👇🏻
https://twitter.com/agcolehamilton/status/1596264003093037056
Perhaps some of the lower order sychophant troughing ex labour hangers on will start to worry that their jobs are on a shoogly peg and start to do something
https://robinmcalpine.org/when-lost-stop-following-what-led-you-here/
They won't run on: Detail of relationship with EU. How to deal with SNP (except 'No'). How to manage interest rates, deal with debt and deficit, balancing current account, increasing/lowering taxes, favouring workers/younger benefits folk over pensioners.
Lots of room for sunlit uplands in the 2030s and 2040s.
The other thing (which gets my vote at the moment) is that they are possibly a less corrupting influence than the Tories have been recently.
Defending the indefensible is part of the job description for a frontline politician.
But everyone (yes, even Boris) has a line beyond which they can't being themselves to go, and the current government is operating in the space. The whiplash from publicly backing Johnson, then Truss, then Sunak, over a few months, must be hideous.
Thirdly, her claim that the next general election is to be treated in Scotland as some kind of a pretend referendum on Scottish independence is equally bizarre. The word “general” is used in the title not just because all seats are contested but because all policies offered up by the candidates are contested too. For one political party to claim it has the right to restrict the democratic process to their self-selected issue doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration. It flies in the face of the very purpose of democratic elections. In short, it is simply nuts.
https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/alistair-bonnington
I think it's also not just about size of the company but about the business model which meant it had quite large debts.
But IANAE and I could easily be wrong.
If this is true you will have to make @HYUFD your Minister of War.
Then, we could enjoy delightful alliterative newspaper headlines such as Masterton runs Mastodon in Manston.
(Yes, I'm bored)
While women like this are not welcome in Keir Starmer’s Labour party, there are many who will raise eyebrows about its self-professed commitment to women’s rights.
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1596429780479807490?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/02/if-labour-is-truly-the-party-of-equality-it-wouldnt-shut-down-the-trans-debate
You get one guess why Labour would exclude a working class socialist woman….she’s the campaigner who compiles the list of women murdered by men read out by Jess Philips in the House of Commons every year.
Most of the professional middle-class supports it, or at least acquiesces in it, and they run everything. The generation coming up positively revel in it like a theology.
There is a solution: advance a consistent political argument against it in public debate and the media for several years until public opinion starts to shift, like Margaret Thatcher did in the late 70s/early 80s, but our politicians have neither the talent nor patience to do that these days.
The two examples you give would (arguably) take plural usage, because the playing is done individually. But "England is poised to reach the final" is the correct usage, because the team can only reach the final as a unit. Similarly, "England is facing elimination".
But having chosen a Lord Advocate on what people who know more about this than me believe to be the basis of who was most likely to approve her Gender Reform legislation, it seems never to have occurred to Sturgeon that she might be blocked from introducing a Referendum Bill. That would (and has) cut 18 months out of her careful choreography. When it happened it was a disaster for her.
Sunak is distinctly "meh" as Prime Minister. The reason he's got the gig is that he's neither hopelessly morally compromised (Johnson) or utterly detached from reality (Truss).
Sunak is the best they've got. And so we're all stuck in this stasis for two years.
Conservative leader Poilievre in Canada and Liberal leader Dutton in Australia have also fought wars on woke
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/23/labor-defence-minister-ends-peter-duttons-war-on-wokeness-within-department
https://www.thestar.com/amp/politics/federal/2022/09/12/pierre-poilievre-pledges-to-restore-hope-to-canadians-in-inaugural-address-to-mps.html
Oh. Never mind.
What would happen is a financial disaster where the suppliers would not get paid and would then be short of money themselves to pay the generators.
Major was quite popular in Scotland initially, winning 11 Scottish Tory MPs in 1992, more than the 10 Thatcher did in 1987 and the highest number of SCon MPs until May won 13 in 2017
It's obsessing and wallowing in what identity group an individual sits in, and treating them differently in the perceived power hierarchy of those groups, rather than treating them as an individual.
I profoundly disagree with it.
This is huge news. When did this happen?
I implicitly trust Alex Cole-Hamilton not to distort or otherwise misrepresent someone else's words.
True as you get older and as you buy property you are more likely to vote Tory as the Stats show (and I assume what you mean), but the word 'hence' is not right. It has a particular meaning which clearly isn't true as otherwise the Tory's would win every election where that was the case and they don't/won't.