Agree with PtP and Cyclefree on Mantel. Deathly dull writing.
Nothing to do with female writers or characters. Love a lot of my sorority authors. But I've never got beyond a few chapters of Mantel before grinding to a turgid bored halt.
I have tried a couple of times to read Salman Rushdie, but his turgid prose always grinds me to a halt fairly quickly.
Agree with much of this, though Mantel trilogy is worth a bit of effort. Also worth much effort is Dickens (who gets a bad press in posts above). Give yourself a leisurely 3 weeks and try Bleak House slowly. Ditto Tale of 2 Cities. If the first chapters, taken slowly don't get you gripped, you ain't going to like him.
Don't start with Pickwick or Hard Times. More or less unreadable for modern readers.
I’m reading Our Mutual Friend at the moment actually.
Good luck. Good in parts. What an opening. Some golden moments. Some less golden half hours. Melvyn Bragg's favourite novel.
The Conservative Party has been hurtling towards a period of opposition for some time and this result reflects that.
The public mood is that they have been government for too long, reinforced by errors and a lack of judgement.
Yes, there's been a fundamental shift in how they are perceived as a result of all their errors.
Rishi could be the greatest PM since the Earl of Sliced Bread, or however the expression goes, but the public wouldn't be receptive to him.
Would he have had a shot if they had picked him in the first place? Possibly, part of the problem is the rapid shifting of direction and demolition of our economic state, but ultimately they are very tired, even now focused mostly on scrapping with each other, and avoiding big areas like housing and social care as they have no ideas. Time's up.
Turnout appears to have been a lot higher than the general consensus on PB. There was talk of 20-25% and here it is nudging 40.
A lot of very pissed off people out there wanting to send a giant FU to the government, perhaps?
Yes it’s encouraging that more are engaged - I take two messages from this: 1) Labour are seen as a government in waiting and 2) the Tories have run out of road. Currently we’re on track for a ‘97 type result - whether that gets better or worse for them depends on how their back benches behave between now and the GE.
It's getting on for thirty years ago, and memory can mislead, but this feels worse than then.
The sexy sleaze under Major was often strange (who was the MP with the anti-snoring device?) but consensual. Now, we're getting allegations of rape (not just on the government benches, to be fair).
The government, despite virtually no majority, did have some real achievements. Today's MPs seem to have more loyalty to their town/personal ideals than their party. Some will see this as a good thing, but it's a recipe for not getting difficult stuff done.
And by 1995 Britain was Booming. Even the optimist takes don't see that as the immediate future.
Of course events, it's not the case that the only way is down (baby). But it's the most obvious path for the Conservatives. And for all that Starmer is no Blair, Sunak is no Major either.
It's DEFINITELY worse than 1997.
For a start, Black Wednesday looked really bad but didn't impact people in the same was as this cost of living crisis. And as you say, the real difference is that Britain was booming by 1995. You are spot on. This time it's near-catastrophic.
Plus on top of the commensurate sleaze you throw in the hideous last 3 years that everyone will want to put behind them and it's curtains for the tories at the next election.
They will be out of power for 10-15 years. Which is why the bright young things are standing down. Who would want to be left on the decaying rump of the tory parliamentary party having to sit alongside cockahoop Labour MPs because they can't all fit on the Government side?
This isn't hubris. It's the reality.
Whether or not it is worse than 97 I think is up in the air. For a start Starmer is not Blair
However what is clear from the result of the by election and also the local council elections that take place regularly is that the polls are not wrong. The votes on the ground are reflecting the polling.
It is over for the Tories. They are in damage limitation now. The issue is whether Starmer wins outright or has to govern in coalition. Labour are doing a good job of just letting the Tories get on with making error after error.
When Dehenna Davison, who has an 8,000 plus majority in a seat that is long term trending towards the Tories, decides to stand down after 1 term it is pretty much obvious the trajectory.
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship with the EU and trade including the single market
Hmmm…for once I agree with the sentiment of HYUFD’s post. I’m pleased to see Labour on course for victory, but I think there are real risks that a future Labour government becomes deeply unpopular quickly because of ongoing economic woes (expectations of them will be high to deal with this with eg pay rises). If at the same time we have a rabid hard right populist Conservative Party, there is a risk that they tell soothing fairy tales to the country that it is all the fault of X marginalised group, and win that way.
At which point, one of Leon’s predictions for the end of the world might actually pertain.
Agree with PtP and Cyclefree on Mantel. Deathly dull writing.
Nothing to do with female writers or characters. Love a lot of my sorority authors. But I've never got beyond a few chapters of Mantel before grinding to a turgid bored halt.
I have tried a couple of times to read Salman Rushdie, but his turgid prose always grinds me to a halt fairly quickly.
Agree with much of this, though Mantel trilogy is worth a bit of effort. Also worth much effort is Dickens (who gets a bad press in posts above). Give yourself a leisurely 3 weeks and try Bleak House slowly. Ditto Tale of 2 Cities. If the first chapters, taken slowly don't get you gripped, you ain't going to like him.
Don't start with Pickwick or Hard Times. More or less unreadable for modern readers.
The Conservative Party has been hurtling towards a period of opposition for some time and this result reflects that.
The public mood is that they have been government for too long, reinforced by errors and a lack of judgement.
The big unknown is what Labour actually proposed to do in power. We got a little glimpse at that this week with the VAT on private school fees idea. They still need to win rather than just let the Tories lose.
Strictly speaking all they have to do is let the Tories lose. I don’t see any of the meticulously triangulated plan for government of eg Blair and Brown, only definitely no EU and immigration bad so as not to scare the the red wall horsies.
They will have little scope to do anything much but try and run the economy sensibly.
They will probably make the wealthier pay a bit more tax than would be the case under the Tories but basically you will have centreist government, rather like you are getting now.
On the whole that will be ok, and certainly a damn site better than we have had for a long while before Sunak/Hunt but it will be a tough gig, and Labour can hardly expect to be loved for doing it.
There is potential for lots of reform that doesn't cost the government any money. We've become too fixated on the government changing the country by spending money, but there's so much more that can be done.
Abolishing leasehold, for example, wouldn't cost the government a penny, but it would make life better for a lot of people. I'm confident there is lots of potential for similar reforms.
Wes Streeting spent some time in Israel looking at low cost innovations that could improve various healthcare outcomes. I suspect that was replicated across a number of briefs and the Labour Party will be looking more broadly at a whole bunch of low-cost, commonsense, reforms inspired by what works elsewhere. Indeed, I expect that kind of reform to dominate their first years in office.
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
On Mantel, people have set out reasons why stylistically I too have issues with the writing. But even leaving that aside I never got why her works win awards and others don't - I've read a lot of stories of that kind set in that period of history, and other than the quirky style, which you either like or don't, they don't stand out from others of that nature.
At the moment the real ballpark figure we should all be looking at is tory seats 100-150 with the lower end of that plausible.
Anyone thinking the tories can pull this out of the bag is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Sunak will get less tactical voting against him than Boris did and Truss would have
And that will give him a few extra seats down South which may give him slightly more than the 134 Electoral Calculus are estimating but won't bring him close to 200 seats.
Equally I don't think this is the Tory's worst result - there are still whole sets of bad news (NHS, tax, inflation, strikes) where voters won't have grasped the impact yet.
My colleague was phoned by her daughter the other day, sticking the credit to electricity prepay rather than gas was an error wasn't it ? Gas prepay 'eating money'... I mean de minimus you can run a house without much electric (Small fridge, lights are minimal now) but GAS is needed to keep warm.
Turnout appears to have been a lot higher than the general consensus on PB. There was talk of 20-25% and here it is nudging 40.
A lot of very pissed off people out there wanting to send a giant FU to the government, perhaps?
Yes it’s encouraging that more are engaged - I take two messages from this: 1) Labour are seen as a government in waiting and 2) the Tories have run out of road. Currently we’re on track for a ‘97 type result - whether that gets better or worse for them depends on how their back benches behave between now and the GE.
It's getting on for thirty years ago, and memory can mislead, but this feels worse than then.
The sexy sleaze under Major was often strange (who was the MP with the anti-snoring device?) but consensual. Now, we're getting allegations of rape (not just on the government benches, to be fair).
The government, despite virtually no majority, did have some real achievements. Today's MPs seem to have more loyalty to their town/personal ideals than their party. Some will see this as a good thing, but it's a recipe for not getting difficult stuff done.
And by 1995 Britain was Booming. Even the optimist takes don't see that as the immediate future.
Of course events, it's not the case that the only way is down (baby). But it's the most obvious path for the Conservatives. And for all that Starmer is no Blair, Sunak is no Major either.
It's DEFINITELY worse than 1997.
For a start, Black Wednesday looked really bad but didn't impact people in the same was as this cost of living crisis. And as you say, the real difference is that Britain was booming by 1995. You are spot on. This time it's near-catastrophic.
Plus on top of the commensurate sleaze you throw in the hideous last 3 years that everyone will want to put behind them and it's curtains for the tories at the next election.
They will be out of power for 10-15 years. Which is why the bright young things are standing down. Who would want to be left on the decaying rump of the tory parliamentary party having to sit alongside cockahoop Labour MPs because they can't all fit on the Government side?
This isn't hubris. It's the reality.
Whether or not it is worse than 97 I think is up in the air. For a start Starmer is not Blair
However what is clear from the result of the by election and also the local council elections that take place regularly is that the polls are not wrong. The votes on the ground are reflecting the polling.
It is over for the Tories. They are in damage limitation now. The issue is whether Starmer wins outright or has to govern in coalition. Labour are doing a good job of just letting the Tories get on with making error after error.
When Dehenna Davison, who has an 8,000 plus majority in a seat that is long term trending towards the Tories, decides to stand down after 1 term it is pretty much obvious the trajectory.
This seat is very close to me, Labour won it but only just, I would have expected a much bigger swing.
One thing Starmer has in his favour is that he’s now a known quantity. Labour leader for nearly 3 years. There’s no Starmer honeymoon, no bubble of inflated expectations that could burst after one poor interview. So it feels like the lead is probably more stable than, say, Cameron’s or indeed Boris in 2019.
What we have is a 14% swing, verified in an actual election, probably automatically somewhat lower in a GE without the by-election dynamics, and the remaining almost inevitable Tory swing back. If Labour are leading by 9-10% by mid 2024 then a final vote share margin of around 5-6% seems possible, with decent Lib Dem pickups in the South and Tory wipeout in Scotland chipping away at Sunak’s seat tally.
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
I have a Teams meeting with a labour shadow minister this afternoon. Maybe I could ask. (Except they’re a shadow treasury minister).
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
As usual you're perceptive about the realpolitik. But don't you think that the Red Wall MPs may see things differently? At present, they are unambiguously on a path to ending their careers. Might they not feel that they need to roll the dice and either bring Boris back or have a newish face to see if it does any good?
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
Labour are 131 seats behind. A large majority is very unlikely indeed. It could be good, a breath of fresh air.
The Tories will be kicking themselves they forced Truss out this morning. Comeback?
Are you for real ?
As I’ve stated in here before I’ve put a lot on her leading the Tories into the next GE, where she will win, and win handsomely. This was all part of her plan.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
As usual you're perceptive about the realpolitik. But don't you think that the Red Wall MPs may see things differently? At present, they are unambiguously on a path to ending their careers. Might they not feel that they need to roll the dice and either bring Boris back or have a newish face to see if it does any good?
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
Not quite so stupid. It gets discussed in relation to defence and development in particular and is an excellent discipline politically. The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
As usual you're perceptive about the realpolitik. But don't you think that the Red Wall MPs may see things differently? At present, they are unambiguously on a path to ending their careers. Might they not feel that they need to roll the dice and either bring Boris back or have a newish face to see if it does any good?
Boris, as he inevitably always does, alienated a lot of Northern MPs by ditching them for Ukraine. Everyone loves Boris's laddish, self-serving routine until they find themselves on the sharp end of it. Then they join the scrap heap of the multitudes of other ex-Boris fans. Boris has no permanent friends or allies, only interests.
Turnout appears to have been a lot higher than the general consensus on PB. There was talk of 20-25% and here it is nudging 40.
A lot of very pissed off people out there wanting to send a giant FU to the government, perhaps?
Yes it’s encouraging that more are engaged - I take two messages from this: 1) Labour are seen as a government in waiting and 2) the Tories have run out of road. Currently we’re on track for a ‘97 type result - whether that gets better or worse for them depends on how their back benches behave between now and the GE.
It's getting on for thirty years ago, and memory can mislead, but this feels worse than then.
The sexy sleaze under Major was often strange (who was the MP with the anti-snoring device?) but consensual. Now, we're getting allegations of rape (not just on the government benches, to be fair).
The government, despite virtually no majority, did have some real achievements. Today's MPs seem to have more loyalty to their town/personal ideals than their party. Some will see this as a good thing, but it's a recipe for not getting difficult stuff done.
And by 1995 Britain was Booming. Even the optimist takes don't see that as the immediate future.
Of course events, it's not the case that the only way is down (baby). But it's the most obvious path for the Conservatives. And for all that Starmer is no Blair, Sunak is no Major either.
It's DEFINITELY worse than 1997.
For a start, Black Wednesday looked really bad but didn't impact people in the same was as this cost of living crisis. And as you say, the real difference is that Britain was booming by 1995. You are spot on. This time it's near-catastrophic.
Plus on top of the commensurate sleaze you throw in the hideous last 3 years that everyone will want to put behind them and it's curtains for the tories at the next election.
They will be out of power for 10-15 years. Which is why the bright young things are standing down. Who would want to be left on the decaying rump of the tory parliamentary party having to sit alongside cockahoop Labour MPs because they can't all fit on the Government side?
This isn't hubris. It's the reality.
Whether or not it is worse than 97 I think is up in the air. For a start Starmer is not Blair
However what is clear from the result of the by election and also the local council elections that take place regularly is that the polls are not wrong. The votes on the ground are reflecting the polling.
It is over for the Tories. They are in damage limitation now. The issue is whether Starmer wins outright or has to govern in coalition. Labour are doing a good job of just letting the Tories get on with making error after error.
When Dehenna Davison, who has an 8,000 plus majority in a seat that is long term trending towards the Tories, decides to stand down after 1 term it is pretty much obvious the trajectory.
This seat is very close to me, Labour won it but only just, I would have expected a much bigger swing.
Why have some parts of the political and commentator classes been encouraged retrospectively to be critical of prolonged lockdowns, when they enthusiastically supported prolonged lockdowns at the time?
Possible answers include
1. No particular reason; it's only about the past, not the present or future, and who cares who says what about the past (what counts is what you think and do about what's actually happening); it gives them something to do to boost their self-image as liberals, as independent thinkers (lol) capable of changing their minds, as clever, and liberals tend to spend more; and paradoxically this actually makes them easier to control the next time they're told to think something;
2. Because next time it's precisely the avoidance of a prolonged lockdown (guess what that would do to an economy that has yet to recover from SARSCoV2, etc.) that will be given as the reason for a massive shock policy early on, possibly including a short and even extreme lockdown but focusing on a big mass compulsory helpy-shot?
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
The frustrating thing about Mantel is there are largely parts of the trilogy that are just a slog. There are flashes of brilliance, and the source material & research is incredible but it’s hard going at times
Mantel's writing of dialogue was hard to follow in Wolf Hall and I had to constantly keep going back half a page to find out. She then over corrected in Bring Up The Bodies with the constant He, Cromwell, approach. I have asked for the Mirror and the Light for Christmas to see how it goes.
And yet for all that, I enjoyed both books. Greater depth (obviously) than the otherwise superb TV version of the first two books (Wolf Hall). I also have a suspicion that Mantel found it hard to write her hero's downfall, and maybe should have stopped at the first two. I will see when i have read the last one.
I've recently finished Bosworth - The Birth of the Tudors by the MP Chris Skidmore. Interesting, if a little over detailed in parts. Now there is a man who someone could do a Mantel on - Richard III. History, well the Tudor historians, have painted him as a fantastic villain, including the obligatory deformities. And yet he was raised at the tail end of the Wars of the Roses and probably quite genuinely feared for his life when hie brother died. Did he have the new King and his brother killed? Seems likely, but I am sure a skilled enough author can weave a tale to justify the act.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Don't think so.
One of my favourites is John Horne Burns' The Gallery which is primarily about men's experience of war. Superb.
Imagine you've just been on a cruise. The ship had vermin. Passengers went down with food poisoning. The cabins were filthy and the staff showed little interest. Passengers then went home and the following year were invited to take another cruise on the same ship but with a captain employed to turn things round or they could take a cruise with a brand new ship and crew. ...
Those hanging their hats on Rishi Sunak's 'Prime Minister's ratings' are flying a kite.
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship with the EU and trade including the single market
The impression that Starmer has given (and you seem to have bought) that he has become a Brexiteer and believes that reinstalling free movement is a red line for him is utter bollox. He's lying.
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship with the EU and trade including the single market
Single market, eh? Splendid.
However, there are two questions that follow which are hard to answer.
First- what do you do about Freedom of Movement? Right now, nobody can mention that for fear of rousing the Faragists.
Second- what do you do about making Single Market rules? Either the UK gets involved in Europolitics again, or we just accept the outputs of Europolitics done by others. Neither of those is that attractive. That's just as true if the EPC becomes a much bigger thing than it currently looks like being.
I'd like a rapid Brapprochment. I suspect the overall will of the people is there also. But there are understandable reasons why it looks set to be slower than is in the national interest.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
The Labour party has promised to sort out the private schools several times before in its manifestos, including manifestos it has actually been elected to "government" on.
I hear on the radio that the Tories are saying that workers can't get an inflation-meeting pay rise (real terms pay freeze) because it will cause an inflationary spiral.
So presumably they're scrapping the Triple Lock, right?
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
The frustrating thing about Mantel is there are largely parts of the trilogy that are just a slog. There are flashes of brilliance, and the source material & research is incredible but it’s hard going at times
Mantel's writing of dialogue was hard to follow in Wolf Hall and I had to constantly keep going back half a page to find out. She then over corrected in Bring Up The Bodies with the constant He, Cromwell, approach. I have asked for the Mirror and the Light for Christmas to see how it goes.
And yet for all that, I enjoyed both books. Greater depth (obviously) than the otherwise superb TV version of the first two books (Wolf Hall). I also have a suspicion that Mantel found it hard to write her hero's downfall, and maybe should have stopped at the first two. I will see when i have read the last one.
I've recently finished Bosworth - The Birth of the Tudors by the MP Chris Skidmore. Interesting, if a little over detailed in parts. Now there is a man who someone could do a Mantel on - Richard III. History, well the Tudor historians, have painted him as a fantastic villain, including the obligatory deformities. And yet he was raised at the tail end of the Wars of the Roses and probably quite genuinely feared for his life when hie brother died. Did he have the new King and his brother killed? Seems likely, but I am sure a skilled enough author can weave a tale to justify the act.
Hard to justify the act of child-killing, but it's relatively easy to see how it might have happened not entirely intentionally - "Will someone rid me of these troublesome princes?!?" - and then Richard III would have had to live with the consequences.
Imagine you've just been on a cruise. The ship had vermin. Passengers went down with food poisoning. The cabins were filthy and the staff showed little interest. Passengers then went home and the following year were invited to take another cruise on the same ship but with a captain employed to turn things round or they could take a cruise with a brand new ship and crew. ...
Those hanging their hats on Rishi Sunak's 'Prime Minister's ratings' are flying a kite.
Hmm, option 2 is more like the same old ship with vermin and clapped out engines, but at least a new crew.
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
Not quite so stupid. It gets discussed in relation to defence and development in particular and is an excellent discipline politically. The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
I don't think there's ANY case for disclosing policy (or even privately deciding on policy) nearly 2 years before a likely election. As a leftie I'd like a bit more sizzle ("A fairer society", that sort of thing) but even I don't expect a steak at present, and it would also annoy members of all kinds if the leadership suddenly came out with amazing new policies without discussion.
This is the time for serious background work (and I know some is going on), plus a few token items like VAT on private schools to keep in the news. Some more concrete indications will come in the September conference, and actual policies in 2024.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
If the CJEU wouldn't allow it, then that's a good thing we left the EU.
I don't think VAT on school fees is a good idea, but it's a tax that should be determined democratically in this country by our elected Parliament.
Better to lose an election, than to be governed undemocratically.
The Conservative Party has been hurtling towards a period of opposition for some time and this result reflects that.
The public mood is that they have been government for too long, reinforced by errors and a lack of judgement.
The big unknown is what Labour actually proposed to do in power. We got a little glimpse at that this week with the VAT on private school fees idea. They still need to win rather than just let the Tories lose.
Strictly speaking all they have to do is let the Tories lose. I don’t see any of the meticulously triangulated plan for government of eg Blair and Brown, only definitely no EU and immigration bad so as not to scare the the red wall horsies.
They will have little scope to do anything much but try and run the economy sensibly.
They will probably make the wealthier pay a bit more tax than would be the case under the Tories but basically you will have centreist government, rather like you are getting now.
On the whole that will be ok, and certainly a damn site better than we have had for a long while before Sunak/Hunt but it will be a tough gig, and Labour can hardly expect to be loved for doing it.
There is potential for lots of reform that doesn't cost the government any money. We've become too fixated on the government changing the country by spending money, but there's so much more that can be done.
Abolishing leasehold, for example, wouldn't cost the government a penny, but it would make life better for a lot of people. I'm confident there is lots of potential for similar reforms.
Wes Streeting spent some time in Israel looking at low cost innovations that could improve various healthcare outcomes. I suspect that was replicated across a number of briefs and the Labour Party will be looking more broadly at a whole bunch of low-cost, commonsense, reforms inspired by what works elsewhere. Indeed, I expect that kind of reform to dominate their first years in office.
You should ask why such reforms haven’t happened already. The answer is usually the systemic political structure of the organisation in question.
For example, some years ago, my daughter went to hospital. I noticed that instead of the usual beige plastic, they were using some mechanics tool chests - metal drawers with a lock on wheels. These were used for storing minor medical stuff like bandages in publicly accessible areas.
I asked - they’d actually win an award for this. They were sturdier, easier to clean, practically unbreakable. And much much cheaper than the special “medical” drawers.
A while later I had to go back to get some results. The mechanics tool chests were gone. Apparently a delegation of MPs had gone round. One had zeroed in on the tool chests and given the manager he was with a rocket. The “proper” drawers were supplied by a company in his constituency. Who had asked their local MP why a London hospital wasn’t buying from them.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
I don't think the CJEU would have had anything to do with it.
It isn't an assault on parents to remove a tax exemption, unpleasant as it may be. Whether it is wise is another matter.
We need to live within our means. If we are serious about doing so, a lot of tax exemptions and favouring of particular groups will need to go.
- Remove all VAT exemptions, for instance, including on food. - NI on all income. - No triple lock. - CGT on primary residences. - Limit the exemptions from inheritance tax. - Increased council tax bands at the top end in every part of the country. - Make people use their savings (including their home) to pay for end of life care - that's what rainy day savings are for. - Cut back on tax credits. If private school parents are not to be subsidised why should shitty employers be? - Limit pension tax relief. - Remove non-dom status. If you live here, you pay your taxes.
And so on.
I can hear the howls of complaint already.
We are not serious about living within our means and earning our way in the world.
I don't think Labour is. And the Tories are currently only interested in governing for greedy grifters like the Lady (Jesus!) Mones of this world.
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
Not quite so stupid. It gets discussed in relation to defence and development in particular and is an excellent discipline politically. The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
First, it assumes a fixed GDP whereas growth is the natural state. Second, as Rishi himself pointed out with regard to defence spending, it is entirely the wrong approach. A GDP target only works for things like overseas aid where small-ish projects can easily be added as the economy grows. Third, politically, it just leads to an unenlightening gotcha moment where the interviewer (and CCHQ) say, aha, well if you increase health spending you must want to sack all the teachers and then how does the post get delivered?
I hear on the radio that the Tories are saying that workers can't get an inflation-meeting pay rise (real terms pay freeze) because it will cause an inflationary spiral.
So presumably they're scrapping the Triple Lock, right?
Only if they close the Caledonian Canal.
(Yes, I know Neptune's Staircase and DochGarroch Locks have more than three locks, but it was the nearest parallel I could think of!)
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much tax they would pay cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
The frustrating thing about Mantel is there are largely parts of the trilogy that are just a slog. There are flashes of brilliance, and the source material & research is incredible but it’s hard going at times
Mantel's writing of dialogue was hard to follow in Wolf Hall and I had to constantly keep going back half a page to find out. She then over corrected in Bring Up The Bodies with the constant He, Cromwell, approach. I have asked for the Mirror and the Light for Christmas to see how it goes.
And yet for all that, I enjoyed both books. Greater depth (obviously) than the otherwise superb TV version of the first two books (Wolf Hall). I also have a suspicion that Mantel found it hard to write her hero's downfall, and maybe should have stopped at the first two. I will see when i have read the last one.
I've recently finished Bosworth - The Birth of the Tudors by the MP Chris Skidmore. Interesting, if a little over detailed in parts. Now there is a man who someone could do a Mantel on - Richard III. History, well the Tudor historians, have painted him as a fantastic villain, including the obligatory deformities. And yet he was raised at the tail end of the Wars of the Roses and probably quite genuinely feared for his life when hie brother died. Did he have the new King and his brother killed? Seems likely, but I am sure a skilled enough author can weave a tale to justify the act.
Hard to justify the act of child-killing, but it's relatively easy to see how it might have happened not entirely intentionally - "Will someone rid me of these troublesome princes?!?" - and then Richard III would have had to live with the consequences.
Tey's 'The daughter of time' won't resolve the Richard III question, but will try, and is one of the most outstanding detective stories of all time. (Infinitely more readable than Mantel BTW)
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship that with the EU and trade including the single market
The impression that Starmer has given (and you seem to have bought) that he has become a Brexiteer and believes that reinstalling free movement is a red line for him is utter bollox. He's lying.
I hope so. But more importantly it shows that he's now using some sophisticated marketing techniques that Labour have been ignoring for several years now. Starmers immediate job is to sell his party to sugfficient of the population to win the next election. There are several things to thrw into that mix including finding out what your target market will find acceptable while maintaining your integrity. It seems to me he's doing that rather well.
An Oxford student union official has apologised for her supposedly trans- exclusionary stance after objecting to the abolition of the women’s officer role.
Ellie Greaves, the vice-president for women at Oxford’s student union, put out a statement after a backlash against her comments in The Times.
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
The problem with the NHS isn't just money, it is staffing. It is simply impossible to catch up on backlogs when there are so many staff vacancies, particularly across critical areas like operating theatres and district nurses.
Unless a serious plan is developed to retain staff those backlogs will not dissappear.
I agree with you but that circles back to money. First point is allow the rich doctors to keep getting richer by stopping the pension nonsense. We need their experience and time to stay in service as long as possible. The second is that clearly there are opportunities for staff to earn more money out of the NHS, so perhaps we need to think about how to change that?
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much they would raise cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
What on earth are they spending all their money on ? Fees have gone up by miles over inflation since forever. I know my old school is in deep financial trouble - they pissed all our fees up the wall on a mahoosive heated indoor swimming pool.
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship that with the EU and trade including the single market
The impression that Starmer has given (and you seem to have bought) that he has become a Brexiteer and believes that reinstalling free movement is a red line for him is utter bollox. He's lying.
I hope so. But more importantly it shows that he's now using some sophisticated marketing techniques that Labour have been ignoring for several years now. Starmers immediate job is to sell his party to sugfficient of the population to win the next election. There are several things to thrw into that mix including finding out what your target market will find acceptable while maintaining your integrity. It seems to me he's doing that rather well.
You hope that he is lying? Weren't you one of lying Boris posters?
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
The frustrating thing about Mantel is there are largely parts of the trilogy that are just a slog. There are flashes of brilliance, and the source material & research is incredible but it’s hard going at times
Mantel's writing of dialogue was hard to follow in Wolf Hall and I had to constantly keep going back half a page to find out. She then over corrected in Bring Up The Bodies with the constant He, Cromwell, approach. I have asked for the Mirror and the Light for Christmas to see how it goes.
And yet for all that, I enjoyed both books. Greater depth (obviously) than the otherwise superb TV version of the first two books (Wolf Hall). I also have a suspicion that Mantel found it hard to write her hero's downfall, and maybe should have stopped at the first two. I will see when i have read the last one.
I've recently finished Bosworth - The Birth of the Tudors by the MP Chris Skidmore. Interesting, if a little over detailed in parts. Now there is a man who someone could do a Mantel on - Richard III. History, well the Tudor historians, have painted him as a fantastic villain, including the obligatory deformities. And yet he was raised at the tail end of the Wars of the Roses and probably quite genuinely feared for his life when hie brother died. Did he have the new King and his brother killed? Seems likely, but I am sure a skilled enough author can weave a tale to justify the act.
Hard to justify the act of child-killing, but it's relatively easy to see how it might have happened not entirely intentionally - "Will someone rid me of these troublesome princes?!?" - and then Richard III would have had to live with the consequences.
No, it is not easy to see how that could have happened. You didn't kill kings, even deposed kings, in medieval England without an explicit direct instruction from the King.
I would point out that Richard's defenders use this argument themselves when pointing out that Richard cannot be held responsible for the murder of Henry VI. The weird ways they chop logic on this subject are genuinely fascinating.
If Buckingham - the only person who could possibly have killed Edward V and his brother on his own initiative - had done so, Richard would have had him instantly executed for murder to throw suspicion off. Yet even when Buckingham was executed a short while afterwards, Richard never charged him with murdering Edward V.
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
Not quite so stupid. It gets discussed in relation to defence and development in particular and is an excellent discipline politically. The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
I don't think there's ANY case for disclosing policy (or even privately deciding on policy) nearly 2 years before a likely election.
Building support for those policies. Sir Keir still appears to be trying to win by default, as he has since day one. That might win him the election, but it won't enable him to govern.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Since the cricket is a bit dull I'll tell you why Mantel gets my goat.
She can write very well. Some of her descriptive passages are beautiful. She also researches thoroughly and knows her history. In Wolf Hall she was writing about a particularly interesting peiod of history, one I know quite well and enjoy reading about, whether its a contrarian view or not.
So why did I give up on it after 150 pages (and like Cyclefree I rarely fail to finish a book)?
It is written in the 'past in the present'. Cockneys use this mode a lot - 'So I goes in the pub and I sees this geezer....' - and it does have a certain dramatic effect, but only if used sparingly. A whole book written in it is simply tedious.
She uses personal pronouns in the most peculiar way which means that at certain points she has to clarify who she is referring to - e.g. 'He, Moore, came in....' Such stylistic quirks are so common throughout the text that you finish up paying more attention to them than the narrative.
You have to wonder what the point of all this weirdness is. I suspect her readers - and she is enormously popular - mistake it for Art. Or maybe the aim is to stand out from all the other writers of this type of novel. I think if she didn't do it, she would be a perfectly readable but ordinary writer of historic fiction. As it is she is deeply irrating, not least for the reason that this highly artificial and contrived rubbish sells like hot cakes, whilst equally capable writers with less of a penchant for self-publicity are ignored.
She is the Agatha Christie of historical novels - a mediocrity who got herself promoted way above her merit.
I think you either find the effort to adjust your reading to the steam of consciousness style is worthwhile, or you don't. That's a matter of taste rather than right or wrong, I think. It's not Agatha Christie, that's for sure.
In a perhaps similar manner, some found large parts of Iain M Bank's Feersum Endjinn unreadable. Others enjoyed it.
I am surprised at some of the criticism for Christie on here. I'm not going to claim that she wrote glorious prose, but the mystery that she created was superb - the plots are excellent. I wonder if the haters have read many of the books?
The next election result is nailed on. I don’t believe there’s a Major type shock left in this gov
People are pissed off. They look around at the economy, public services, NIMBYs and the bizarre ERG type MPs in the party and conclude there is no point anymore. Hence the message they’ll send
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
Not quite so stupid. It gets discussed in relation to defence and development in particular and is an excellent discipline politically. The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
First, it assumes a fixed GDP whereas growth is the natural state. Second, as Rishi himself pointed out with regard to defence spending, it is entirely the wrong approach. A GDP target only works for things like overseas aid where small-ish projects can easily be added as the economy grows. Third, politically, it just leads to an unenlightening gotcha moment where the interviewer (and CCHQ) say, aha, well if you increase health spending you must want to sack all the teachers and then how does the post get delivered?
Broadly agree with some of this; but your conclusion permits vast amounts of unclarity and evasion.
In particular the big evasion is this: In the long run total state managed expenditure is going to be approx X% of GDP. Altering it by 1 or 2 % points is in normal times all that will happen.
So the real question is always (in normal times) priority and competence; whereas the discussion tends to be individual bits of expenditure. This evades the priority and competence issues.
I hear on the radio that the Tories are saying that workers can't get an inflation-meeting pay rise (real terms pay freeze) because it will cause an inflationary spiral.
So presumably they're scrapping the Triple Lock, right?
Only if they close the Caledonian Canal.
(Yes, I know Neptune's Staircase and DochGarroch Locks have more than three locks, but it was the nearest parallel I could think of!)
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much they would raise cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
What on earth are they spending all their money on ? Fees have gone up by miles over inflation since forever. I know my old school is in deep financial trouble - they pissed all our fees up the wall on a mahoosive heated indoor swimming pool.
I a m Chair of Trustees of my old primary school.
Staff costs are the single biggest item. We try to treat and pay our staff well. They are what make a school good.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much they would raise cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
What on earth are they spending all their money on ? Fees have gone up by miles over inflation since forever. I know my old school is in deep financial trouble - they pissed all our fees up the wall on a mahoosive heated indoor swimming pool.
I a m Chair of Trustees of my old primary school.
Staff costs are the single biggest item. We try to treat and pay our staff well. They are what make a school good.
Shame the government treats them like shit.
Mind you, that's true of many private schools as well in my experience. The amount of Union casework from private schools was out of all proportion to the number of members in them.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Since the cricket is a bit dull I'll tell you why Mantel gets my goat.
She can write very well. Some of her descriptive passages are beautiful. She also researches thoroughly and knows her history. In Wolf Hall she was writing about a particularly interesting peiod of history, one I know quite well and enjoy reading about, whether its a contrarian view or not.
So why did I give up on it after 150 pages (and like Cyclefree I rarely fail to finish a book)?
It is written in the 'past in the present'. Cockneys use this mode a lot - 'So I goes in the pub and I sees this geezer....' - and it does have a certain dramatic effect, but only if used sparingly. A whole book written in it is simply tedious.
She uses personal pronouns in the most peculiar way which means that at certain points she has to clarify who she is referring to - e.g. 'He, Moore, came in....' Such stylistic quirks are so common throughout the text that you finish up paying more attention to them than the narrative.
You have to wonder what the point of all this weirdness is. I suspect her readers - and she is enormously popular - mistake it for Art. Or maybe the aim is to stand out from all the other writers of this type of novel. I think if she didn't do it, she would be a perfectly readable but ordinary writer of historic fiction. As it is she is deeply irrating, not least for the reason that this highly artificial and contrived rubbish sells like hot cakes, whilst equally capable writers with less of a penchant for self-publicity are ignored.
She is the Agatha Christie of historical novels - a mediocrity who got herself promoted way above her merit.
I think you either find the effort to adjust your reading to the steam of consciousness style is worthwhile, or you don't. That's a matter of taste rather than right or wrong, I think. It's not Agatha Christie, that's for sure.
In a perhaps similar manner, some found large parts of Iain M Bank's Feersum Endjinn unreadable. Others enjoyed it.
I am surprised at some of the criticism for Christie on here. I'm not going to claim that she wrote glorious prose, but the mystery that she created was superb - the plots are excellent. I wonder if the haters have read many of the books?
Agree. And there are thirty plus that are outstandingly good entertainment. And, BTW, the classic (1974) version of Orient Express is a really rare example of a film that is better than the book.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much they would raise cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
What on earth are they spending all their money on ? Fees have gone up by miles over inflation since forever. I know my old school is in deep financial trouble - they pissed all our fees up the wall on a mahoosive heated indoor swimming pool.
They are financial trouble partly because of Covid (some reduced fees to parents when children were at home and overseas pupils ceased) and they are run on a shoestring anyway. I have experience of three or four non-fancy private day schools (fees 15k pa approx) and they are all struggling to cope. Salaries and property upkeep are the biggies of course.
My youngest recently moved from one (freezing class rooms, property disrepair) in favour of a large state school for her sixth form studies. The state school was a real eye-opener to her, and my wife I, when we toured it.
Turnout appears to have been a lot higher than the general consensus on PB. There was talk of 20-25% and here it is nudging 40.
A lot of very pissed off people out there wanting to send a giant FU to the government, perhaps?
Yes it’s encouraging that more are engaged - I take two messages from this: 1) Labour are seen as a government in waiting and 2) the Tories have run out of road. Currently we’re on track for a ‘97 type result - whether that gets better or worse for them depends on how their back benches behave between now and the GE.
It's getting on for thirty years ago, and memory can mislead, but this feels worse than then.
The sexy sleaze under Major was often strange (who was the MP with the anti-snoring device?) but consensual. Now, we're getting allegations of rape (not just on the government benches, to be fair).
The government, despite virtually no majority, did have some real achievements. Today's MPs seem to have more loyalty to their town/personal ideals than their party. Some will see this as a good thing, but it's a recipe for not getting difficult stuff done.
And by 1995 Britain was Booming. Even the optimist takes don't see that as the immediate future.
Of course events, it's not the case that the only way is down (baby). But it's the most obvious path for the Conservatives. And for all that Starmer is no Blair, Sunak is no Major either.
It's DEFINITELY worse than 1997.
For a start, Black Wednesday looked really bad but didn't impact people in the same was as this cost of living crisis. And as you say, the real difference is that Britain was booming by 1995. You are spot on. This time it's near-catastrophic.
Plus on top of the commensurate sleaze you throw in the hideous last 3 years that everyone will want to put behind them and it's curtains for the tories at the next election.
They will be out of power for 10-15 years. Which is why the bright young things are standing down. Who would want to be left on the decaying rump of the tory parliamentary party having to sit alongside cockahoop Labour MPs because they can't all fit on the Government side?
This isn't hubris. It's the reality.
Whether or not it is worse than 97 I think is up in the air. For a start Starmer is not Blair
However what is clear from the result of the by election and also the local council elections that take place regularly is that the polls are not wrong. The votes on the ground are reflecting the polling.
It is over for the Tories. They are in damage limitation now. The issue is whether Starmer wins outright or has to govern in coalition. Labour are doing a good job of just letting the Tories get on with making error after error.
When Dehenna Davison, who has an 8,000 plus majority in a seat that is long term trending towards the Tories, decides to stand down after 1 term it is pretty much obvious the trajectory.
Although there are likely to be personal decisions for some of the MP's choosing to stand down too. She has always struck me as an unusual person.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
I don't think the CJEU would have had anything to do with it.
It isn't an assault on parents to remove a tax exemption, unpleasant as it may be. Whether it is wise is another matter.
We need to live within our means. If we are serious about doing so, a lot of tax exemptions and favouring of particular groups will need to go.
- Remove all VAT exemptions, for instance, including on food. - NI on all income. - No triple lock. - CGT on primary residences. - Limit the exemptions from inheritance tax. - Increased council tax bands at the top end in every part of the country. - Make people use their savings (including their home) to pay for end of life care - that's what rainy day savings are for. - Cut back on tax credits. If private school parents are not to be subsidised why should shitty employers be? - Limit pension tax relief. - Remove non-dom status. If you live here, you pay your taxes.
And so on.
I can hear the howls of complaint already.
We are not serious about living within our means and earning our way in the world.
I don't think Labour is. And the Tories are currently only interested in governing for greedy grifters like the Lady (Jesus!) Mones of this world.
Funny, when I was growing up, living within your means meant spending less not earning more - which is what you are telling the country to do with almost every one of your tax rises.
Why no emphasis on the Government spending less taxpayer's money rather than just forever increasing the tax burden?
Oh and a 20% increase in tax on the poorest and most vulnerable - which is what your VAT proposals entail - is not exactly progressive.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Don't think so.
One of my favourites is John Horne Burns' The Gallery which is primarily about men's experience of war. Superb.
The aversion to Dickens is a strange one, then. Mantel I can understand, as the books are rather Marmite.
On the subject of Richard III - unless he was insane, he did not fear for his life on the death of Edward IV. He was, in fact, a close friend and ally of both Queen Elizabeth and her brother, including representing them on various royal commissions and even fathering at least one child, Katherine, and possibly also John of Gloucester, on one of their cousins.
One of the reasons Rivers and the queen were so ineffective in their response to his seizure of power and later usurpation is that they were taken totally by surprise that Richard had turned on them.
Richard took the throne because, as he had shown throughout his life, he was both greedy and reckless. As with the Countess of Oxfordks estates, his marriage to Anne of Warwick and his connivance at Clarence's death (another one that Edward IV was responsible for but which he could not have put though, Commons petitions or no, had Richard objected) he saw a rich prize and trampled on everyone around him and the law to seize it.
He probably did try to rationalise it that he was the best person to rule the country. He may even have been right - if it weren't for the minor detail that there were at least three people with a better claim to it under the procedures established by his brother and great-great-great-grandfather.
The irony is all the murders he committed to get and keep the throne - Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, Edward V, Prince Richard and finally Buckingham - were what led to popular discontent with him and made Tudor's invasion possible.
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
Not quite so stupid. It gets discussed in relation to defence and development in particular and is an excellent discipline politically. The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
I don't think there's ANY case for disclosing policy (or even privately deciding on policy) nearly 2 years before a likely election. As a leftie I'd like a bit more sizzle ("A fairer society", that sort of thing) but even I don't expect a steak at present, and it would also annoy members of all kinds if the leadership suddenly came out with amazing new policies without discussion.
This is the time for serious background work (and I know some is going on), plus a few token items like VAT on private schools to keep in the news. Some more concrete indications will come in the September conference, and actual policies in 2024.
It cannot be a coincidence that we get a bit of VAT sizzling in the week prior to a Westminster by-election, which then goes heavily in Labour's favour. Seems like something of a test to me...
On Mantel, people have set out reasons why stylistically I too have issues with the writing. But even leaving that aside I never got why her works win awards and others don't - I've read a lot of stories of that kind set in that period of history, and other than the quirky style, which you either like or don't, they don't stand out from others of that nature.
Yep, its not really clear. I think there is a fashion for certain authors, and if you are in vogue, the literati rave about you. My favourite opposite of this was Terry Pratchett. Possibly one of our best authors of the last century, certainly sold the most books, and yet sneered at by the 'right sort' until the end, because he wrote fantasy. That the books contained biting satire on many things and espoused a world view as potent as anyones (not unlike the The Doctor's 'Just be kind').
I live in the constituency and it has generally been considered a marginal - went Labour for 1st time in 1997 and returned a Tory as recently as 2010.
The result was very close to a prediction based on current poling which indicates that they are pretty accurate which is very bad news for the Tories.
It also puts a nail in the coffin of the argument that Labour don't do as well when "real" votes are counted, an argument that gets trotted out every time the Tories do OK in some local by-election.
I don't think the Tories should draw much comfort from the notion that their voters just stayed at home this time. There were switchers. Anecdote - we put a Labour poster for this election for the first time ever - haven't even voted Labour for many years - and two sets of people we know living nearby told me they were voting Labour this time. One couple said it was the first time ever and the other 2 said it was the first time since 1997. Unless Sunak can pull something out of the hat they are heading for a 1997 style defeat.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Since the cricket is a bit dull I'll tell you why Mantel gets my goat.
She can write very well. Some of her descriptive passages are beautiful. She also researches thoroughly and knows her history. In Wolf Hall she was writing about a particularly interesting peiod of history, one I know quite well and enjoy reading about, whether its a contrarian view or not.
So why did I give up on it after 150 pages (and like Cyclefree I rarely fail to finish a book)?
It is written in the 'past in the present'. Cockneys use this mode a lot - 'So I goes in the pub and I sees this geezer....' - and it does have a certain dramatic effect, but only if used sparingly. A whole book written in it is simply tedious.
She uses personal pronouns in the most peculiar way which means that at certain points she has to clarify who she is referring to - e.g. 'He, Moore, came in....' Such stylistic quirks are so common throughout the text that you finish up paying more attention to them than the narrative.
You have to wonder what the point of all this weirdness is. I suspect her readers - and she is enormously popular - mistake it for Art. Or maybe the aim is to stand out from all the other writers of this type of novel. I think if she didn't do it, she would be a perfectly readable but ordinary writer of historic fiction. As it is she is deeply irrating, not least for the reason that this highly artificial and contrived rubbish sells like hot cakes, whilst equally capable writers with less of a penchant for self-publicity are ignored.
She is the Agatha Christie of historical novels - a mediocrity who got herself promoted way above her merit.
I think you either find the effort to adjust your reading to the steam of consciousness style is worthwhile, or you don't. That's a matter of taste rather than right or wrong, I think. It's not Agatha Christie, that's for sure.
In a perhaps similar manner, some found large parts of Iain M Bank's Feersum Endjinn unreadable. Others enjoyed it.
I am surprised at some of the criticism for Christie on here. I'm not going to claim that she wrote glorious prose, but the mystery that she created was superb - the plots are excellent. I wonder if the haters have read many of the books?
I find myself in strong disagreement with both Cyclefree and PtP on this. Dickens, Mantel and Christie are all excellent reads. The only author I have ever really struggled with was Virginia Woolfe, in part because of her stream of consciousness style and in part because of her whole literary ethos.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Since the cricket is a bit dull I'll tell you why Mantel gets my goat.
She can write very well. Some of her descriptive passages are beautiful. She also researches thoroughly and knows her history. In Wolf Hall she was writing about a particularly interesting peiod of history, one I know quite well and enjoy reading about, whether its a contrarian view or not.
So why did I give up on it after 150 pages (and like Cyclefree I rarely fail to finish a book)?
It is written in the 'past in the present'. Cockneys use this mode a lot - 'So I goes in the pub and I sees this geezer....' - and it does have a certain dramatic effect, but only if used sparingly. A whole book written in it is simply tedious.
She uses personal pronouns in the most peculiar way which means that at certain points she has to clarify who she is referring to - e.g. 'He, Moore, came in....' Such stylistic quirks are so common throughout the text that you finish up paying more attention to them than the narrative.
You have to wonder what the point of all this weirdness is. I suspect her readers - and she is enormously popular - mistake it for Art. Or maybe the aim is to stand out from all the other writers of this type of novel. I think if she didn't do it, she would be a perfectly readable but ordinary writer of historic fiction. As it is she is deeply irrating, not least for the reason that this highly artificial and contrived rubbish sells like hot cakes, whilst equally capable writers with less of a penchant for self-publicity are ignored.
She is the Agatha Christie of historical novels - a mediocrity who got herself promoted way above her merit.
I think you either find the effort to adjust your reading to the steam of consciousness style is worthwhile, or you don't. That's a matter of taste rather than right or wrong, I think. It's not Agatha Christie, that's for sure.
In a perhaps similar manner, some found large parts of Iain M Bank's Feersum Endjinn unreadable. Others enjoyed it.
I am surprised at some of the criticism for Christie on here. I'm not going to claim that she wrote glorious prose, but the mystery that she created was superb - the plots are excellent. I wonder if the haters have read many of the books?
I don't hate her; just saying the Mantel comparison didn't work for me.
The next election result is nailed on. I don’t believe there’s a Major type shock left in this gov
People are pissed off. They look around at the economy, public services, NIMBYs and the bizarre ERG type MPs in the party and conclude there is no point anymore. Hence the message they’ll send
So 1992 with a different result rather than 1997 after a tide of sleaze talk? No traction for an "If Kinnock wins, will the last person to leave the country turn out the light?" job? Right now there are senior Labour figures who could usefully be personally targeted and it wouldn't surprise me if Starmer himself is targeted nearer the election. The knuckledragging knuckleheads who voted for Brexit haven't got what they wanted. Promises of some kind will have to be made, but I don't see Labour benefiting.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much they would raise cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
What on earth are they spending all their money on ? Fees have gone up by miles over inflation since forever. I know my old school is in deep financial trouble - they pissed all our fees up the wall on a mahoosive heated indoor swimming pool.
A fair point. Do nothing and many will fade away through lack of funds. Overseas pupil numbers are likely to be down for some who rely on China for boarding numbers. The major asset tends to be the site.
Pretty much a waste of energy in fighting over VAT charges when there is little benefit in the policy. Unless you are completely moronic and think the rich kids parents won't employ additional tutoring to get Theodora and Humphry the best results in the state school the have to attend, thus enhancing the chances of a place at a good Uni as they have excelled at a state school, not at a privileged fee paying establishment.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Since the cricket is a bit dull I'll tell you why Mantel gets my goat.
She can write very well. Some of her descriptive passages are beautiful. She also researches thoroughly and knows her history. In Wolf Hall she was writing about a particularly interesting peiod of history, one I know quite well and enjoy reading about, whether its a contrarian view or not.
So why did I give up on it after 150 pages (and like Cyclefree I rarely fail to finish a book)?
It is written in the 'past in the present'. Cockneys use this mode a lot - 'So I goes in the pub and I sees this geezer....' - and it does have a certain dramatic effect, but only if used sparingly. A whole book written in it is simply tedious.
She uses personal pronouns in the most peculiar way which means that at certain points she has to clarify who she is referring to - e.g. 'He, Moore, came in....' Such stylistic quirks are so common throughout the text that you finish up paying more attention to them than the narrative.
You have to wonder what the point of all this weirdness is. I suspect her readers - and she is enormously popular - mistake it for Art. Or maybe the aim is to stand out from all the other writers of this type of novel. I think if she didn't do it, she would be a perfectly readable but ordinary writer of historic fiction. As it is she is deeply irrating, not least for the reason that this highly artificial and contrived rubbish sells like hot cakes, whilst equally capable writers with less of a penchant for self-publicity are ignored.
She is the Agatha Christie of historical novels - a mediocrity who got herself promoted way above her merit.
I think you either find the effort to adjust your reading to the steam of consciousness style is worthwhile, or you don't. That's a matter of taste rather than right or wrong, I think. It's not Agatha Christie, that's for sure.
In a perhaps similar manner, some found large parts of Iain M Bank's Feersum Endjinn unreadable. Others enjoyed it.
I am surprised at some of the criticism for Christie on here. I'm not going to claim that she wrote glorious prose, but the mystery that she created was superb - the plots are excellent. I wonder if the haters have read many of the books?
I agree. I read loads in my late teens. Some are very good indeed: The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Crooked House, Endless Night, Then There Were None ...
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship with the EU and trade including the single market
The impression that Starmer has given (and you seem to have bought) that he has become a Brexiteer and believes that reinstalling free movement is a red line for him is utter bollox. He's lying.
It is not possible for Starmer to lie - he is upright and truthful according to him
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship with the EU and trade including the single market
Single market, eh? Splendid.
However, there are two questions that follow which are hard to answer.
First- what do you do about Freedom of Movement? Right now, nobody can mention that for fear of rousing the Faragists.
Second- what do you do about making Single Market rules? Either the UK gets involved in Europolitics again, or we just accept the outputs of Europolitics done by others. Neither of those is that attractive. That's just as true if the EPC becomes a much bigger thing than it currently looks like being.
I'd like a rapid Brapprochment. I suspect the overall will of the people is there also. But there are understandable reasons why it looks set to be slower than is in the national interest.
The best way forward at present is to back Macron's outer country proposals which is about the only thing Truss was correct on
On Mantel, people have set out reasons why stylistically I too have issues with the writing. But even leaving that aside I never got why her works win awards and others don't - I've read a lot of stories of that kind set in that period of history, and other than the quirky style, which you either like or don't, they don't stand out from others of that nature.
Yep, its not really clear. I think there is a fashion for certain authors, and if you are in vogue, the literati rave about you. My favourite opposite of this was Terry Pratchett. Possibly one of our best authors of the last century, certainly sold the most books, and yet sneered at by the 'right sort' until the end, because he wrote fantasy. That the books contained biting satire on many things and espoused a world view as potent as anyones (not unlike the The Doctor's 'Just be kind').
Yes: Pratchett not only plotted brilliantly (after a slightly rocky start, it should be said) and was one of the funniest* writers of the 20th century, but also used language as gloriously as any other writer of the English language. I read his books again and again, and they get better each time. His descriptions of the chalk on which Tiffany Aching lives make me feel homesick for an imaginary place.
*the ability to be funny in writing is often strangely looked down upon. But it's much harder to do than it looks. And as I've always thought: if a story is neither funny nor true, what's the point?
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
Not quite so stupid. It gets discussed in relation to defence and development in particular and is an excellent discipline politically. The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
I don't think there's ANY case for disclosing policy (or even privately deciding on policy) nearly 2 years before a likely election. As a leftie I'd like a bit more sizzle ("A fairer society", that sort of thing) but even I don't expect a steak at present, and it would also annoy members of all kinds if the leadership suddenly came out with amazing new policies without discussion.
This is the time for serious background work (and I know some is going on), plus a few token items like VAT on private schools to keep in the news. Some more concrete indications will come in the September conference, and actual policies in 2024.
It cannot be a coincidence that we get a bit of VAT sizzling in the week prior to a Westminster by-election, which then goes heavily in Labour's favour. Seems like something of a test to me...
The VAT on Private education showed that Labour are finally getting their act together. As Nick implies the policy does nothing in itself except remind voters that they are still against privilege and in case anyone had forgotten that's what Rishi and everything about him reeks of. I imagine his personal PR company gave Labour's new agency a quiet pat on the back for that one.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much they would raise cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
What on earth are they spending all their money on ? Fees have gone up by miles over inflation since forever. I know my old school is in deep financial trouble - they pissed all our fees up the wall on a mahoosive heated indoor swimming pool.
A fair point. Do nothing and many will fade away through lack of funds. Overseas pupil numbers are likely to be down for some who rely on China for boarding numbers. The major asset tends to be the site.
Pretty much a waste of energy in fighting over VAT charges when there is little benefit in the policy. Unless you are completely moronic and think the rich kids parents won't employ additional tutoring to get Theodora and Humphry the best results in the state school the have to attend, thus enhancing the chances of a place at a good Uni as they have excelled at a state school, not at a privileged fee paying establishment.
I like the sound of this new Labour policy already...even though I frankly think it's treating the symptom not the cause.
What is unsaid in interviews matters quite a lot. Wes Streeting this morning on Today R4 had no intention of answering the question: Given that 12% of GDP is spent on health care currently what do Labour think would be the right amount?
Focus on this question would be a good political discipline, and not just for Labour.
To be fair, it is a stupid question. Nonetheless, if Radio 4 is intent on asking it, a response should be prepared.
Not quite so stupid. It gets discussed in relation to defence and development in particular and is an excellent discipline politically. The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
I don't think there's ANY case for disclosing policy (or even privately deciding on policy) nearly 2 years before a likely election. As a leftie I'd like a bit more sizzle ("A fairer society", that sort of thing) but even I don't expect a steak at present, and it would also annoy members of all kinds if the leadership suddenly came out with amazing new policies without discussion.
This is the time for serious background work (and I know some is going on), plus a few token items like VAT on private schools to keep in the news. Some more concrete indications will come in the September conference, and actual policies in 2024.
It cannot be a coincidence that we get a bit of VAT sizzling in the week prior to a Westminster by-election, which then goes heavily in Labour's favour. Seems like something of a test to me...
The VAT on Private education showed that Labour are finally getting their act together. As Nick implies the policy does nothing in itself except remind voters that they are still against privilege and in case anyone had forgotten that's what Rishi and everything about him reeks of. I imagine his personal PR company gave Labour's new agency a quiet pat on the back for that one.
"getting their act together" - "playing politics of envy and having no clue how to actually improve the country".
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship with the EU and trade including the single market
Single market, eh? Splendid.
However, there are two questions that follow which are hard to answer.
First- what do you do about Freedom of Movement? Right now, nobody can mention that for fear of rousing the Faragists.
Second- what do you do about making Single Market rules? Either the UK gets involved in Europolitics again, or we just accept the outputs of Europolitics done by others. Neither of those is that attractive. That's just as true if the EPC becomes a much bigger thing than it currently looks like being.
I'd like a rapid Brapprochment. I suspect the overall will of the people is there also. But there are understandable reasons why it looks set to be slower than is in the national interest.
Well you can deal with the second point by joining EFTA. That means that the UK would be part of a formal structure within the EEA with the ability to shape and challenge rule changes. And with the ability to veto their application if they were not to our liking - something that did not exist when we were members of the EU.
The swing in Chester of 14% to Labour was actually better for the Tories than the 18% swing to Labour in the latest YouGov poll yesterday.
So while not a great result for the Tories and good for Labour it was actually not as disastrous for Sunak as some of the latest polls would suggest
Glad I am not alone in seeing this “disaster for the Tories” as completely over hyped. It’s just not there in the pseudological facts.
1) mid term by elections your voters don’t come out. You can get results just like this even when national polls are much closer together. 1b) Chester Turnout usually 75% plus, and history in seat points towards a labour seat not strong Tory one, how does anyone prove votes have switched here not just stay at home? Without switchers there is argument Labour is underperforming in real votes compared to polls, Labour underperforming turning polls into real votes with switchers, as they certainly have in real votes throughout 2022 have they not? This Labour under performance in real elections v polls, was the second main take out from 2022 locals, after main take out of Lib Dem better than expected performance. 2) did Tories give their voters reason for protest against them though by staying home? As they have told the world their Tory predecessors in recent Tory cabinets have broken the asylum system and made mistakes which crashed the economy, they sure have given voters a reason to give them a mid term slap. Have they not? But with two years to come out of mid term and build to election, what does this result actually say about what is certain to happen at that next General Election?
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Since the cricket is a bit dull I'll tell you why Mantel gets my goat.
She can write very well. Some of her descriptive passages are beautiful. She also researches thoroughly and knows her history. In Wolf Hall she was writing about a particularly interesting peiod of history, one I know quite well and enjoy reading about, whether its a contrarian view or not.
So why did I give up on it after 150 pages (and like Cyclefree I rarely fail to finish a book)?
It is written in the 'past in the present'. Cockneys use this mode a lot - 'So I goes in the pub and I sees this geezer....' - and it does have a certain dramatic effect, but only if used sparingly. A whole book written in it is simply tedious.
She uses personal pronouns in the most peculiar way which means that at certain points she has to clarify who she is referring to - e.g. 'He, Moore, came in....' Such stylistic quirks are so common throughout the text that you finish up paying more attention to them than the narrative.
You have to wonder what the point of all this weirdness is. I suspect her readers - and she is enormously popular - mistake it for Art. Or maybe the aim is to stand out from all the other writers of this type of novel. I think if she didn't do it, she would be a perfectly readable but ordinary writer of historic fiction. As it is she is deeply irrating, not least for the reason that this highly artificial and contrived rubbish sells like hot cakes, whilst equally capable writers with less of a penchant for self-publicity are ignored.
She is the Agatha Christie of historical novels - a mediocrity who got herself promoted way above her merit.
I think you either find the effort to adjust your reading to the steam of consciousness style is worthwhile, or you don't. That's a matter of taste rather than right or wrong, I think. It's not Agatha Christie, that's for sure.
In a perhaps similar manner, some found large parts of Iain M Bank's Feersum Endjinn unreadable. Others enjoyed it.
I am surprised at some of the criticism for Christie on here. I'm not going to claim that she wrote glorious prose, but the mystery that she created was superb - the plots are excellent. I wonder if the haters have read many of the books?
I agree. I read loads in my late teens. Some are very good indeed: The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Crooked House, Endless Night, Then There Were None ...
Agatha Christie is a superb writer whose books are among the best in her chosen genre. You have to turn a blind eye to some of her prejudices, which are very much on display in her books, though.
I think VAT on schools simply raises extra revenue. Clearly demand is quite inelastic as as I mentioned before about the above inflation rises. Doubtless we'll hear about the hard working dentist who now can't afford it or some such.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
I don't think the CJEU would have had anything to do with it.
It isn't an assault on parents to remove a tax exemption, unpleasant as it may be. Whether it is wise is another matter.
We need to live within our means. If we are serious about doing so, a lot of tax exemptions and favouring of particular groups will need to go.
- Remove all VAT exemptions, for instance, including on food. - NI on all income. - No triple lock. - CGT on primary residences. - Limit the exemptions from inheritance tax. - Increased council tax bands at the top end in every part of the country. - Make people use their savings (including their home) to pay for end of life care - that's what rainy day savings are for. - Cut back on tax credits. If private school parents are not to be subsidised why should shitty employers be? - Limit pension tax relief. - Remove non-dom status. If you live here, you pay your taxes.
And so on.
I can hear the howls of complaint already.
We are not serious about living within our means and earning our way in the world.
I don't think Labour is. And the Tories are currently only interested in governing for greedy grifters like the Lady (Jesus!) Mones of this world.
Funny, when I was growing up, living within your means meant spending less not earning more - which is what you are telling the country to do with almost every one of your tax rises.
Why no emphasis on the Government spending less taxpayer's money rather than just forever increasing the tax burden?
Oh and a 20% increase in tax on the poorest and most vulnerable - which is what your VAT proposals entail - is not exactly progressive.
Because no government is going to say it will spend less on pensions or less on the NHS.
Not to mention government ministers, of every political persuasion, want to spend more as it makes them feel more important and makes them more popular.
Turnout appears to have been a lot higher than the general consensus on PB. There was talk of 20-25% and here it is nudging 40.
A lot of very pissed off people out there wanting to send a giant FU to the government, perhaps?
Yes it’s encouraging that more are engaged - I take two messages from this: 1) Labour are seen as a government in waiting and 2) the Tories have run out of road. Currently we’re on track for a ‘97 type result - whether that gets better or worse for them depends on how their back benches behave between now and the GE.
It's getting on for thirty years ago, and memory can mislead, but this feels worse than then.
The sexy sleaze under Major was often strange (who was the MP with the anti-snoring device?) but consensual. Now, we're getting allegations of rape (not just on the government benches, to be fair).
The government, despite virtually no majority, did have some real achievements. Today's MPs seem to have more loyalty to their town/personal ideals than their party. Some will see this as a good thing, but it's a recipe for not getting difficult stuff done.
And by 1995 Britain was Booming. Even the optimist takes don't see that as the immediate future.
Of course events, it's not the case that the only way is down (baby). But it's the most obvious path for the Conservatives. And for all that Starmer is no Blair, Sunak is no Major either.
It's DEFINITELY worse than 1997.
For a start, Black Wednesday looked really bad but didn't impact people in the same was as this cost of living crisis. And as you say, the real difference is that Britain was booming by 1995. You are spot on. This time it's near-catastrophic.
Plus on top of the commensurate sleaze you throw in the hideous last 3 years that everyone will want to put behind them and it's curtains for the tories at the next election.
They will be out of power for 10-15 years. Which is why the bright young things are standing down. Who would want to be left on the decaying rump of the tory parliamentary party having to sit alongside cockahoop Labour MPs because they can't all fit on the Government side?
This isn't hubris. It's the reality.
Whether or not it is worse than 97 I think is up in the air. For a start Starmer is not Blair
However what is clear from the result of the by election and also the local council elections that take place regularly is that the polls are not wrong. The votes on the ground are reflecting the polling.
It is over for the Tories. They are in damage limitation now. The issue is whether Starmer wins outright or has to govern in coalition. Labour are doing a good job of just letting the Tories get on with making error after error.
When Dehenna Davison, who has an 8,000 plus majority in a seat that is long term trending towards the Tories, decides to stand down after 1 term it is pretty much obvious the trajectory.
This seat is very close to me, Labour won it but only just, I would have expected a much bigger swing.
Local factors have a much greater significance in Council by-elections. Turnout is often very low indeed and the results can be all over the place even when polling is on the same day. Parliamentary by-elections are a far more accurate reflection of the current popularity of the Westminster government. The Chester result was closely in line with all the current national polls.
I missed laying Uruguay at 1.86 for today's match against Ghana because I was trying to be clever and looking for 1.84. Price is now 1.98. I still think it's a lay.
So, if you were a Tory strategist what would you do?
Another leadership election? Third time a charm? Hunt/$unak isn’t getting the blue tribe excited. Bring back Boris, lower taxes and say to hell with the markets. Try to sell glimmers of economic good news as massive achievements, whilst ignoring the rest. Dog whistle all the nasty stuff as if your life depended on it.
Er, that’s it.
No, the right will now let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then the ERG will try and take over and push the party to the populist hard right in opposition via Braverman, Badenoch and Mogg and hope Labour fails to get a grip with the economy
You , the ERG and the right are exactly why we are where we are and the idea the conservative party, post the next GE, turns itself into a Corbynite style cabal with the likes of the appalling Braverman and the utterly ridiculous Rees Mogg leading it is the model for immediate political irrelevance and out of power for a generation and beyond
It is obvious to most everyone the mood in the nation has changed not least to your little Englander views, and as far as I am concerned Starmer's likely success in Scotland is a real plus as he strengthens support for the Union and my main regret is that Starmer seems to have decided to become more of a Brexiteer than the ERG, when in reality he has a golden opportunity for improving relationship with the EU and trade including the single market
Single market, eh? Splendid.
However, there are two questions that follow which are hard to answer.
First- what do you do about Freedom of Movement? Right now, nobody can mention that for fear of rousing the Faragists.
Second- what do you do about making Single Market rules? Either the UK gets involved in Europolitics again, or we just accept the outputs of Europolitics done by others. Neither of those is that attractive. That's just as true if the EPC becomes a much bigger thing than it currently looks like being.
I'd like a rapid Brapprochment. I suspect the overall will of the people is there also. But there are understandable reasons why it looks set to be slower than is in the national interest.
Well you can deal with the second point by joining EFTA. That means that the UK would be part of a formal structure within the EEA with the ability to shape and challenge rule changes. And with the ability to veto their application if they were not to our liking - something that did not exist when we were members of the EU.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written...
Neither of the last two are unreadable, it's just that you don't care for them. It's true that Dickens wasn't great at writing women, but I don't think he's exclusively a male preserve; my daughter likes his novels. Agree about 1-3, and Vanity Fair.
It is v rare for me not to finish a book. With Dickens I cannot get past chapter 1. Mantel: I could not finish Wolf Hall. Her style is deeply annoying and she managed to make Tudor politics boring. Hugely overrated. IMO.
I like Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot and Brontë. So dunno what it is about Dickens.
Perhaps that you don't like books which aren't very interested in women ? That's true of Mantel's trilogy, too.
Don't think so.
One of my favourites is John Horne Burns' The Gallery which is primarily about men's experience of war. Superb.
I can verify this - read it on @Cyclefree's recommendation, and really loved it. I find it hard to understand the quite widespread disaffection with Mantel's trilogy - I read this and absolutely loved it, and I started it out of interest for the subject rather than affection for Mantel, as I'd read nothing of hers before. I found the writing very easy to understand; who knows, perhaps my love of, and years of acting in, Shakespeare's plays helped. It seemed well-researched (IANAH), the characterisations were excellent, and the story was fascinating. All I can do is chalk it up to individual preferences. Some you like and some you don't. Dickens I find a little hard, and the main thing for me is that his style is so distinctive that it has lent itself to a gerat deal of pastiche. I find it hard to get beyond the various comic takeoffs - Two Ronnies, Rowan Atkinson, even Simon Callow - when reading them. THey also suffer from their origins as serialisations - there's a lot of padding, and characters can disappeare quite rapidly when he's run out of ideas for them.
Comments
Rishi could be the greatest PM since the Earl of Sliced Bread, or however the expression goes, but the public wouldn't be receptive to him.
Would he have had a shot if they had picked him in the first place? Possibly, part of the problem is the rapid shifting of direction and demolition of our economic state, but ultimately they are very tired, even now focused mostly on scrapping with each other, and avoiding big areas like housing and social care as they have no ideas. Time's up.
However what is clear from the result of the by election and also the local council elections that take place regularly is that the polls are not wrong. The votes on the ground are reflecting the polling.
It is over for the Tories. They are in damage limitation now. The issue is whether Starmer wins outright or has to govern in coalition. Labour are doing a good job of just letting the Tories get on with making error after error.
When Dehenna Davison, who has an 8,000 plus majority in a seat that is long term trending towards the Tories, decides to stand down after 1 term it is pretty much obvious the trajectory.
At which point, one of Leon’s predictions for the end of the world might actually pertain.
I mean de minimus you can run a house without much electric (Small fridge, lights are minimal now) but GAS is needed to keep warm.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1598479162209091584?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
What we have is a 14% swing, verified in an actual election, probably automatically somewhat lower in a GE without the by-election dynamics, and the remaining almost inevitable Tory swing back. If Labour are leading by 9-10% by mid 2024 then a final vote share margin of around 5-6% seems possible, with decent Lib Dem pickups in the South and Tory wipeout in Scotland chipping away at Sunak’s seat tally.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
The answer can't be zero, and can't be 100%. There are international comparisons to be made; and the poor old voter will be better informed about allocation of finite resource to the potentially unlimited demand.
To govern is to choose. Expenditure plans expressed as % of GDP is a magnificent measure of choices for a future government, because of its simplicity.
Labour have an interesting political/strategy choice about whether to reveal a little of the approach they will take. I think they will stick to attacks and sunlit uplands. Still, given the nature of problems in the UK at the moment it would be nice to have a clue from Labour; especially as I plan to vote for them....
Like the supermarkets being cleaned out of cranberries when Delia Smith 'did' them on TV, only not so nice.
Possible answers include
1. No particular reason; it's only about the past, not the present or future, and who cares who says what about the past (what counts is what you think and do about what's actually happening); it gives them something to do to boost their self-image as liberals, as independent thinkers (lol) capable of changing their minds, as clever, and liberals tend to spend more; and paradoxically this actually makes them easier to control the next time they're told to think something;
2. Because next time it's precisely the avoidance of a prolonged lockdown (guess what that would do to an economy that has yet to recover from SARSCoV2, etc.) that will be given as the reason for a massive shock policy early on, possibly including a short and even extreme lockdown but focusing on a big mass compulsory helpy-shot?
And yet for all that, I enjoyed both books. Greater depth (obviously) than the otherwise superb TV version of the first two books (Wolf Hall). I also have a suspicion that Mantel found it hard to write her hero's downfall, and maybe should have stopped at the first two. I will see when i have read the last one.
I've recently finished Bosworth - The Birth of the Tudors by the MP Chris Skidmore. Interesting, if a little over detailed in parts. Now there is a man who someone could do a Mantel on - Richard III. History, well the Tudor historians, have painted him as a fantastic villain, including the obligatory deformities. And yet he was raised at the tail end of the Wars of the Roses and probably quite genuinely feared for his life when hie brother died. Did he have the new King and his brother killed? Seems likely, but I am sure a skilled enough author can weave a tale to justify the act.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
One of my favourites is John Horne Burns' The Gallery which is primarily about men's experience of war. Superb.
Those hanging their hats on Rishi Sunak's 'Prime Minister's ratings' are flying a kite.
However, there are two questions that follow which are hard to answer.
First- what do you do about Freedom of Movement? Right now, nobody can mention that for fear of rousing the Faragists.
Second- what do you do about making Single Market rules? Either the UK gets involved in Europolitics again, or we just accept the outputs of Europolitics done by others. Neither of those is that attractive. That's just as true if the EPC becomes a much bigger thing than it currently looks like being.
I'd like a rapid Brapprochment. I suspect the overall will of the people is there also. But there are understandable reasons why it looks set to be slower than is in the national interest.
So presumably they're scrapping the Triple Lock, right?
This is the time for serious background work (and I know some is going on), plus a few token items like VAT on private schools to keep in the news. Some more concrete indications will come in the September conference, and actual policies in 2024.
I don't think VAT on school fees is a good idea, but it's a tax that should be determined democratically in this country by our elected Parliament.
Better to lose an election, than to be governed undemocratically.
For example, some years ago, my daughter went to hospital. I noticed that instead of the usual beige plastic, they were using some mechanics tool chests - metal drawers with a lock on wheels. These were used for storing minor medical stuff like bandages in publicly accessible areas.
I asked - they’d actually win an award for this. They were sturdier, easier to clean, practically unbreakable. And much much cheaper than the special “medical” drawers.
A while later I had to go back to get some results. The mechanics tool chests were gone. Apparently a delegation of MPs had gone round. One had zeroed in on the tool chests and given the manager he was with a rocket. The “proper” drawers were supplied by a company in his constituency. Who had asked their local MP why a London hospital wasn’t buying from them.
It isn't an assault on parents to remove a tax exemption, unpleasant as it may be. Whether it is wise is another matter.
We need to live within our means. If we are serious about doing so, a lot of tax exemptions and favouring of particular groups will need to go.
- Remove all VAT exemptions, for instance, including on food.
- NI on all income.
- No triple lock.
- CGT on primary residences.
- Limit the exemptions from inheritance tax.
- Increased council tax bands at the top end in every part of the country.
- Make people use their savings (including their home) to pay for end of life care - that's what rainy day savings are for.
- Cut back on tax credits. If private school parents are not to be subsidised why should shitty employers be?
- Limit pension tax relief.
- Remove non-dom status. If you live here, you pay your taxes.
And so on.
I can hear the howls of complaint already.
We are not serious about living within our means and earning our way in the world.
I don't think Labour is. And the Tories are currently only interested in governing for greedy grifters like the Lady (Jesus!) Mones of this world.
(Yes, I know Neptune's Staircase and DochGarroch Locks have more than three locks, but it was the nearest parallel I could think of!)
I know my old school is in deep financial trouble - they pissed all our fees up the wall on a mahoosive heated indoor swimming pool.
Off to have my hair done. Then work.
I would point out that Richard's defenders use this argument themselves when pointing out that Richard cannot be held responsible for the murder of Henry VI. The weird ways they chop logic on this subject are genuinely fascinating.
If Buckingham - the only person who could possibly have killed Edward V and his brother on his own initiative - had done so, Richard would have had him instantly executed for murder to throw suspicion off. Yet even when Buckingham was executed a short while afterwards, Richard never charged him with murdering Edward V.
People are pissed off. They look around at the economy, public services, NIMBYs and the bizarre ERG type MPs in the party and conclude there is no point anymore. Hence the message they’ll send
In particular the big evasion is this: In the long run total state managed expenditure is going to be approx X% of GDP. Altering it by 1 or 2 % points is in normal times all that will happen.
So the real question is always (in normal times) priority and competence; whereas the discussion tends to be individual bits of expenditure. This evades the priority and competence issues.
More appropriately named canal, too, given the powers involved.
Staff costs are the single biggest item. We try to treat and pay our staff well. They are what make a school good.
Mind you, that's true of many private schools as well in my experience. The amount of Union casework from private schools was out of all proportion to the number of members in them.
My youngest recently moved from one (freezing class rooms, property disrepair) in favour of a large state school for her sixth form studies. The state school was a real eye-opener to her, and my wife I, when we toured it.
Why no emphasis on the Government spending less taxpayer's money rather than just forever increasing the tax burden?
Oh and a 20% increase in tax on the poorest and most vulnerable - which is what your VAT proposals entail - is not exactly progressive.
One of the reasons Rivers and the queen were so ineffective in their response to his seizure of power and later usurpation is that they were taken totally by surprise that Richard had turned on them.
Richard took the throne because, as he had shown throughout his life, he was both greedy and reckless. As with the Countess of Oxfordks estates, his marriage to Anne of Warwick and his connivance at Clarence's death (another one that Edward IV was responsible for but which he could not have put though, Commons petitions or no, had Richard objected) he saw a rich prize and trampled on everyone around him and the law to seize it.
He probably did try to rationalise it that he was the best person to rule the country. He may even have been right - if it weren't for the minor detail that there were at least three people with a better claim to it under the procedures established by his brother and great-great-great-grandfather.
The irony is all the murders he committed to get and keep the throne - Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, Edward V, Prince Richard and finally Buckingham - were what led to popular discontent with him and made Tudor's invasion possible.
The result was very close to a prediction based on current poling which indicates that they are pretty accurate which is very bad news for the Tories.
It also puts a nail in the coffin of the argument that Labour don't do as well when "real" votes are counted, an argument that gets trotted out every time the Tories do OK in some local by-election.
I don't think the Tories should draw much comfort from the notion that their voters just stayed at home this time. There were switchers. Anecdote - we put a Labour poster for this election for the first time ever - haven't even voted Labour for many years - and two sets of people we know living nearby told me they were voting Labour this time. One couple said it was the first time ever and the other 2 said it was the first time since 1997. Unless Sunak can pull something out of the hat they are heading for a 1997 style defeat.
Do nothing and many will fade away through lack of funds.
Overseas pupil numbers are likely to be down for some who rely on China for boarding numbers.
The major asset tends to be the site.
Pretty much a waste of energy in fighting over VAT charges when there is little benefit in the policy. Unless you are completely moronic and think the rich kids parents won't employ additional tutoring to get Theodora and Humphry the best results in the state school the have to attend, thus enhancing the chances of a place at a good Uni as they have excelled at a state school, not at a privileged fee paying establishment.
*the ability to be funny in writing is often strangely looked down upon. But it's much harder to do than it looks. And as I've always thought: if a story is neither funny nor true, what's the point?
1) mid term by elections your voters don’t come out. You can get results just like this even when national polls are much closer together.
1b) Chester Turnout usually 75% plus, and history in seat points towards a labour seat not strong Tory one, how does anyone prove votes have switched here not just stay at home? Without switchers there is argument Labour is underperforming in real votes compared to polls, Labour underperforming turning polls into real votes with switchers, as they certainly have in real votes throughout 2022 have they not? This Labour under performance in real elections v polls, was the second main take out from 2022 locals, after main take out of Lib Dem better than expected performance.
2) did Tories give their voters reason for protest against them though by staying home? As they have told the world their Tory predecessors in recent Tory cabinets have broken the asylum system and made mistakes which crashed the economy, they sure have given voters a reason to give them a mid term slap. Have they not? But with two years to come out of mid term and build to election, what does this result actually say about what is certain to happen at that next General Election?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqFPhsO-2W0
https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1598174708985257984
Quite brilliant!
Doubtless we'll hear about the hard working dentist who now can't afford it or some such.
Not to mention government ministers, of every political persuasion, want to spend more as it makes them feel more important and makes them more popular.
I find it hard to understand the quite widespread disaffection with Mantel's trilogy - I read this and absolutely loved it, and I started it out of interest for the subject rather than affection for Mantel, as I'd read nothing of hers before. I found the writing very easy to understand; who knows, perhaps my love of, and years of acting in, Shakespeare's plays helped. It seemed well-researched (IANAH), the characterisations were excellent, and the story was fascinating. All I can do is chalk it up to individual preferences. Some you like and some you don't.
Dickens I find a little hard, and the main thing for me is that his style is so distinctive that it has lent itself to a gerat deal of pastiche. I find it hard to get beyond the various comic takeoffs - Two Ronnies, Rowan Atkinson, even Simon Callow - when reading them. THey also suffer from their origins as serialisations - there's a lot of padding, and characters can disappeare quite rapidly when he's run out of ideas for them.