Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Have you ever wondered why GRADUATES and DIEHARD REMAINERS don't vote Tory?
Could it be something to do with being well educated?
Actually the Tories won graduates over 65 in 2019.
However given the average voter is a Leave voting non graduate who lives in the Midlands, if the LDs want to just be the party of Remain voting graduates in the most expensive parts of London and the South that is fine by me
Given the average man has less than 2 legs would you be happy losing a foot?
I would welcome SKS getting involved in the trans debate. The negativity that surrounds him is his timorousness. There are no votes to be won on trans rights but there are plenty if Starmer can show courage and leadership.
Taking the knee and offering his resignation if found guilty of breaking lockdown rules were small potatoes but both worked in his favour. This would be bigger. I'm hoping he'll add flat out rejection of Rwanda in the near future and a serious rapprochement with France and the EU before the election. Chapter and verse......
But this would be a good start.
It might play well in the North London dinner party circuit.
Cocks in Frocks likely to be less popular across the Red Wall.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
There are a lot of us in Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Esher, Carshalton, Winchester ...
And Bath and North Oxford and West Edinburgh and Chesham and Amersham.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
And supporting the Conservatives if you are under age 50 is weird.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
There are a lot of us in Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Esher, Carshalton, Winchester ...
And Bath and North Oxford and West Edinburgh and Chesham and Amersham.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
And supporting the Conservatives if you are under age 50 is weird.
The Conservatives won 39 to 50 year olds in 2019
And it's almost 2023 now and even a die hard under 50 Tory like you voted Remain.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
There are a lot of us in Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Esher, Carshalton, Winchester ...
And Bath and North Oxford and West Edinburgh and Chesham and Amersham.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
They also had candidates like Penhaligon, Birtwistle, and Russell who effectively were Mr Cornwall, Mr Burnley, and Mr Colchester.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
There are a lot of us in Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Esher, Carshalton, Winchester ...
And Bath and North Oxford and West Edinburgh and Chesham and Amersham.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
They also had candidates like Penhaligon, Birtwistle, and Russell who effectively were Mr Cornwall, Mr Burnley, and Mr Colchester.
The other gentlemen of those places must have been right mingers.
I would welcome SKS getting involved in the trans debate. The negativity that surrounds him is his timorousness. There are no votes to be won on trans rights but there are plenty if Starmer can show courage and leadership.
Taking the knee and offering his resignation if found guilty of breaking lockdown rules were small potatoes but both worked in his favour. This would be bigger. I'm hoping he'll add flat out rejection of Rwanda in the near future and a serious rapprochement with France and the EU before the election. Chapter and verse......
But this would be a good start.
It might play well in the North London dinner party circuit.
Cocks in Frocks likely to be less popular across the Red Wall.
Not sure that Cocks in Frocks will be an issue at all. Your typical socially conservative leftie red waller may be a bit hmmmm on the subject. But its 704th priority vs the calamity that public services and their ability to have a decent standard of living have fallen into.
The Tories and their Mail/GBeebies friends successfully weaponised stupidity and ignorance. But failed to actually deliver what they had promised to deliver - jobs, prosperity, services. So a chunk of people will fall back to not voting, a lot will go back to Labour, a few will stick it out with the Tories, and a mad number will go REFUK.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks - this is just you trying to publicly defuse what you think might prove a damaging line of attack that could prevent votes for a Labour majority government. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
You refer to "oodles of evidence" in your second paragraph. Could you point us to some of it?
I think what you're missing is that the dogma and wokeness you object to so much is not very influential within the Labour Party these days. Most of it is from radical individuals and people on Twitter who would never dream of joining the Labour Party, though some of it may be from ex-Labour Party members. But Nick is right on the substantive point - current Labour Party members and activists are dominated by those who want to kick the Tories out and create a fairer society.
The problem with CR's hypothesis is Corbyn. If CR were right that Starmer and his allies are incredibly woke, then why did the right of the Labour Party have such a strong dislike for Corbyn? I suppose you can say it was because they recognised he was an obvious vote loser who would take the party to a terrible defeat... and while that is true to some extent, the extent of the dislike can't be explained by that alone. The answer is it's precisely because they believed Corbyn didn't like this country and was ashamed of its history. By contrast, his opponents in the Labour Party actually like the UK, believe Britain is a force for good in the world, are solidly unionist, and are proud of the role Labour played in WW2 and helping found NATO. None of these views sit well with 'wokeness'. It's the Corybnite wing of the party which was truly woke, but they are now effectively powerless.
Rugby League star and motor neurone disease fundraiser Rob Burrow's wheelchair accessible van was vandalised while his family were out for a Christmas meal, his father has said.
Thought I should do my homework on the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill. On the whole it looks like a process change so that trans people can officially change their gender on how they self-identify, rather than have to go through a humiliating psychiatric investigation. As such it brings Scotland in line with best practice that is being brought into place in Italy, France, Germany, Canada etc. It is also fundamentally a humane piece of legislation, which is why I think it gets broad support across parties in Scotland.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all. The subtext of her argument, I think, is that discrimination against trans people is actually fine, but she's not prepared to say so openly.
On topic, if Labour get 30% of the vote in the next GE, they will be in the territory of taking significant numbers of seats off the SNP.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
As I recall, they won just twelve seats in 1945. So that's another parallel...
That was why I didn’t compare their prospects with 1997!
They did get a new leader in 1945, of course.
Unfortunately, he was an ineffectual if well-meaning alcoholic who basically drank his way through three general elections.
Force majeure, of course; the previous leader lost his seat!
I think I’m right in saying that the new liberal leader was offered a cabinet seat by Churchill, turned it down. Minister of education if I recall correctly.
He did, yes.
Not that surprising. Churchill and Clement Davies had worked together closely in the 1930s when Davies was chair of the All-Party Action Group working against appeasement and Neville Chamberlain.
However, in many other ways they were actually very unlike. Davies was an opponent of apartheid, for example, and an advocate of one world government. I can understand he would have felt it impossible to abide by collective security in a Conservative government led by Churchill and Eden.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Thought I should do my homework on the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill. On the whole it looks like a process change so that trans people can officially change their gender on how they self-identify, rather than have to go through a humiliating psychiatric investigation. As such it brings Scotland in line with best practice that is being brought into place in Italy, France, Germany, Canada etc. It is also fundamentally a humane piece of legislation, which is why I think it gets broad support across parties in Scotland.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all. The subtext of her argument, I think, is that discrimination against trans people is actually fine, but she's not prepared to say so openly.
On topic, if Labour get 30% of the vote in the next GE, they will be in the territory of taking significant numbers of seats off the SNP.
The issue remains men. Specifically the toxic masculinity that so many men are fed whilst growing up which turns them into pack animals where women are their prey. Better to focus on this - and work to eradicate the genuine fear that so many women have - and fix the tiny risk created by allowing trans people to be themselves.
I am not for one moment dismissing the concerns women have. I want to go after the real problem. Which with the greatest respect to their concerns isn't the GRA flawed as it is.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Cost of transporting and banking cash can be expensive. Be interesting to know how that stacks up against card fees. Also, I wonder if you don't except cash how that effects insurance, because obviously no cash, far less likely somebody is going to rob a small shop.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
The cost of banking cash is bigger than the cost of electronic payments. It may not be upfront, but it leads to higher theft, staff time, staff stress and banking costs.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The gleeful enthusiasm with which Unionists greet every new Nat killing silver bullet is almost touching. I think the first time I noticed the phenomenon was the mass screeching, front page headlines and predictions of Natogeddon when it was discovered that Swinney had allowed the 3p Tartan Tax facility to lapse.
That was 2010.
The main point is that since elections are still fought by parties with manifestos rather than rich egos on twitter, the GRR is something that SLab & the SLDs can’t weaponise without blowing their own feet off. If anyone thinks that the Douglas Ross No to Indyref II party are going to benefit electorally from changing room hysteria I’m sure there will be plenty of betting opportunities with which they can fill their boots.
Probably helps Nicola if anything. Tories use the GRR Bill to weaponise self-ID against Labour, which forces Starmer have to a firm policy on self-ID. If he goes against self-ID (out of fear of losing red wall voters), Sturgeon can then weaponise this against Labour to try to pick up progressive floating SNP-Lab voters to get here to the magic 50% at the GE.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Cost of transporting and banking cash can be expensive. Be interesting to know how that stacks up against card fees.
It stacks up well if you're dealing in small amounts. If most of your customers are paying about £10-15 it's far cheaper to use cash.
Once it gets over that card starts to make major savings.
This is one reason as well why many stores still have minimum spend on card.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Same round here. Lots of shops and restaurants only take cash.
The reason I don’t is due to Anti-Money laundering requirements.
Compared to our dingy people issue, everything is bigger in US, especially Texas....
There were 233,740 migrants apprehended along the U.S. southern border in November, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection- a 1% increase from October's record - breaking apprehensions and marked the highest ever number of border crossings ever recorded for the month of November.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Cost of transporting and banking cash can be expensive. Be interesting to know how that stacks up against card fees. Also, I wonder if you don't except cash how that effects insurance, because obviously no cash, far less likely somebody is going to rob a small shop.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
The cost of banking cash is bigger than the cost of electronic payments. It may not be upfront, but it leads to higher theft, staff time, staff stress and banking costs.
Not for multiple small amounts it doesn't, because there is a minimum fee. For example, Lloyds demanded 15p per transaction when I looked at business banking for them, but only 90p to deposit £100 in cash. The sums there for twenty transactions of £5 each...well, are simple.
Cash is still cheaper if you have multiple small transactions. Which is what even now most small shops and takeaways have round here.
I was ordering a click'n'collect from a deli a while ago. When I went to collect it they were missing a little item and gave me two shiny pound coins to make up the difference. I half-stared at them thinking "What... are these?". They're still sat on the hall sideboard almost a year later.
I would imagine another big advantage to card over cash is speed. So many boozers are now card only (or really making "nudging" you towards doing so). I can only presume it is because a) it means handsy bar staff can't help themselves to any of those nice reddies, but also increases speed of serving people. You also see it with pop-up shops / food places.
Thought I should do my homework on the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill. On the whole it looks like a process change so that trans people can officially change their gender on how they self-identify, rather than have to go through a humiliating psychiatric investigation. As such it brings Scotland in line with best practice that is being brought into place in Italy, France, Germany, Canada etc. It is also fundamentally a humane piece of legislation, which is why I think it gets broad support across parties in Scotland.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all. The subtext of her argument, I think, is that discrimination against trans people is actually fine, but she's not prepared to say so openly.
On topic, if Labour get 30% of the vote in the next GE, they will be in the territory of taking significant numbers of seats off the SNP.
That's not homework; it's delivering your own entirely one-sided view, which we could have predicted based on your other political predelictions. People will give it the weight it deserves.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Have you ever wondered why GRADUATES and DIEHARD REMAINERS don't vote Tory?
Could it be something to do with being well educated?
Actually the Tories won graduates over 65 in 2019.
However given the average voter is a Leave voting non graduate who lives in the Midlands, if the LDs want to just be the party of Remain voting graduates in the most expensive parts of London and the South that is fine by me
But the "average voter" in almost every Lib Dem target seat isn't like that at all. For a start, by definition they don't live in the Midlands in most target seats.
What the Conservatives want to worry about with the yellows is not that the Lib Dems sweep to power picking up vast swathes of seats between Dudley and Peterborough, because that isn't going to happen (you want to worry about Labour there). It's that they pick up a cluster of seats in the South and a handful of tempting targets elsewhere, and end up with 30-40 seats that would otherwise be in the Tory column.
You risk making it MORE likely with the sort of reverse-snobbery that screams, "just screw all the cappuccino-sipping lawyers on commuter trains from Dorking, and the chartered surveyors with their holidays in the Dordogne, fretting about a new Barrett estate in the green belt or whatever - you can all just eff off and vote for Ed Davey".
Also worth pointing out that North Shropshire wasn't packed with Remainers, and Tiverton & Honiton is neither big on Remainers nor graduates.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
It's the difference between a process which is determined by people's choices about their own identity with safeguards against abuse and a process where the presumption is that you are "normal" and can only switch to another identity if you can convince a psychiatrist that you are not. Rowling argues for the second but it's not clear she really wants that either, She certainly doesn't have any empathy for trans people.
I would imagine another big advantage to card over cash is speed. So many boozers are now card only (or really making "nudging" you towards doing so). I can only presume it is because a) it means handsy bar staff can't help themselves to any of those nice reddies, but also increases speed of serving people. You also see it with pop-up shops / food places.
The handsy bar staff now just add an extra 0 to the bill and hope you don't look when you get your tappity out.
I would imagine another big advantage to card over cash is speed. So many boozers are now card only (or really making "nudging" you towards doing so). I can only presume it is because a) it means handsy bar staff can't help themselves to any of those nice reddies, but also increases speed of serving people. You also see it with pop-up shops / food places.
Isn't it 'readies' as in ready cash? Maybe it is 'reddies' - due to red shade of banknotes?
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Cost of transporting and banking cash can be expensive. Be interesting to know how that stacks up against card fees. Also, I wonder if you don't except cash how that effects insurance, because obviously no cash, far less likely somebody is going to rob a small shop.
This is from 2019 and has cash costing 9% vs electronic 1.75%. (9% sounds high but it will be much more than 1.75%)
And since then electronic costs will have come down through competition whereas labour intensive cash will be going up with wage inflation.
That is complete rubbish. And not surprising since it is a puff piece from a contactless service company. I regularly bank cash from fairs and markets and my costs are less than 1%. The fact they include the time taken to pay with cash which actually, for any local business, is time interacting with the customer and doing a bit of casual brand building, shows how desperate they are to warp the numbers.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
More than 90% of the admittedly small number of cases of gender dysmorphia that the Scottish Prison Service have to deal only seem to be asserted once the person claiming to suffer from dysmorphia are in prison. Curious how the possibility of being detained in a woman’s prison rather than a man’s prison seems to bring this on.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Cost of transporting and banking cash can be expensive. Be interesting to know how that stacks up against card fees. Also, I wonder if you don't except cash how that effects insurance, because obviously no cash, far less likely somebody is going to rob a small shop.
This is from 2019 and has cash costing 9% vs electronic 1.75%. (9% sounds high but it will be much more than 1.75%)
And since then electronic costs will have come down through competition whereas labour intensive cash will be going up with wage inflation.
That is complete rubbish. And not surprising since it is a puff piece from a contactless service company. I regularly bank cash from fairs and markets and my costs are less than 1%. The fact they include the time taken to pay with cash which actually, for any local business, is time interacting with the customer and doing a bit of casual brand building, shows how desperate they are to warp the numbers.
Also, it mentions queueing. Just not a thing in many smaller shops except at peak times.
They also talk about timings, but I note they haven't included the time involved in setting up the terminal to take the payment.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Edit - although come to think of it, you still need pound coins as a deposit for the lockers.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
More than 90% of the admittedly small number of cases of gender dysmorphia that the Scottish Prison Service have to deal only seem to be asserted once the person claiming to suffer from dysmorphia are in prison. Curious how the possibility of being detained in a woman’s prison rather than a man’s prison seems to bring this on.
In addition, a large percentage are in for sex crimes:
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
I suspect that will be an outcome SKS would be profoundly satisfied with. As would I.
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
The other thing where the LD leadership shot themselves in the foot this year in terms of getting media attention was by cancelling their conference at the last minute.
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
Being the fourth party in the commons, and so losing the weekly three questions at PMQs has to be part of it. The coalition stench on them amongst leftwingers must be fading now, you would think. It's bizarre the lib dems haven't been able to capitalize on their remainerism in a broader way than just byelections.
Thought I should do my homework on the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill. On the whole it looks like a process change so that trans people can officially change their gender on how they self-identify, rather than have to go through a humiliating psychiatric investigation. As such it brings Scotland in line with best practice that is being brought into place in Italy, France, Germany, Canada etc. It is also fundamentally a humane piece of legislation, which is why I think it gets broad support across parties in Scotland.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all. The subtext of her argument, I think, is that discrimination against trans people is actually fine, but she's not prepared to say so openly.
On topic, if Labour get 30% of the vote in the next GE, they will be in the territory of taking significant numbers of seats off the SNP.
That's not homework; it's delivering your own entirely one-sided view, which we could have predicted based on your other political predelictions. People will give it the weight it deserves.
Can't be bothered with this. At least I have arguments based on facts (Rowling's statements in this case). You just have miserable insult.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
In fact it is a myth that cash was introduced to replace barter - there's no evidence of barter's being the primary means of exchange in societies with recorded history, outside wartime and such. Perhaps because as soon as you have a historical record, you can extend credit to people.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
Which again comes back to price. Don't know where you live, but if the average price of a coffee in an artisan shop is £8 and they have nowhere to keep cash overnight, the economics probably do stack up. If, as round here, it's £1.40, and the bank with the free night safe is literally across the road - well, it only has to be put that way, doesn't it?
If the banks had any sense, they would abolish card charges to eliminate cash, for that reason.
And then would reimpose them when they had succeeded, because they're cynical bastards who skim you top and bottom.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There's a working-class town a few miles down the road from where I live, and the interesting thing I noticed recently was how many of the shops there are still cash only, or cash preferred, with card payments only for large amounts.
The other thing where the LD leadership shot themselves in the foot this year in terms of getting media attention was by cancelling their conference at the last minute.
Do you seriously think, given everything else going on at the time, anyone would have been interested in the pontifications of the LDs or indeed any political party?
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
Hey, they managed John Major.
Though even when JM was being dull, he was interestingly dull. Partly because of the contrast with Maggie, partly because of the "ran away from the circus to become a banker" trope.
But if you wanted to satirise Ed Davey, where would you even begin?
(Much like Rishi, actually. Private Eye look like they're not bothering to give him his own parody, just sticking with the Cabinet Groupchat thing they started with Boris.)
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
More than 90% of the admittedly small number of cases of gender dysmorphia that the Scottish Prison Service have to deal only seem to be asserted once the person claiming to suffer from dysmorphia are in prison. Curious how the possibility of being detained in a woman’s prison rather than a man’s prison seems to bring this on.
In addition, a large percentage are in for sex crimes:
This issue is ludicrously simple. If you have your gender reassigned surgically, having been through the necessary assessments, you should be considered your reassigned gender. It is both cruel, and impolite, not to so so. Male to female transsexuals will inherit greater physical strength, but imo are very unlikely to represent a greater threat of sexual violence to women than biological women.
If on the other hand, you have a fully functioning penis, and you enjoy putting it in things, and have no intention of doing otherwise, you're clearly not a woman. End of. The cut-off point is the cut-off point.
No sign of travel chaos. Roads blissfully clear up here. Maybe everyone travelled early?
Deathly quiet around here today too. Anecdotally from local social media posts a lot of people have either cancelled their trips because they thought it would be a nightmare, or have cancelled as they (or the person they were going to visit) are loaded with the lurgy that's doing the rounds.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
No sign of travel chaos. Roads blissfully clear up here. Maybe everyone travelled early?
Deathly quiet around here today too. Anecdotally from local social media posts a lot of people have either cancelled their trips because they thought it would be a nightmare, or have cancelled as they (or the person they were going to visit) are loaded with the lurgy that's doing the rounds.
I do hope it stays that way when I'm driving tomorrow. A nice easy run down the M5 would suit me fine.
The other thing where the LD leadership shot themselves in the foot this year in terms of getting media attention was by cancelling their conference at the last minute.
Do you seriously think, given everything else going on at the time, anyone would have been interested in the pontifications of the LDs or indeed any political party?
Of course - millions of people were bored out of their skulls while others were obsessing about live-streaming a queue in central London.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks - this is just you trying to publicly defuse what you think might prove a damaging line of attack that could prevent votes for a Labour majority government. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
“Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks”
Would you like to clarify your own position CR? Do you believe Transwomen are men? that it is not possible for someone who is male to become female? That personally you wouldn’t recognise them as female even if they held a legally binding, Gender Recognition Certificate government-issued by the current Conservative government?
Does Sunak and his ministers really want to be asked these questions every time they sit down for an interview?
No, I don't believe Transwomen are men. I might treat someone who'd medically transitioned from female to male as all intents and purposes as the same as a man but that still wouldn't make them a biological man.
And my position really didn't need "clarifying" it's been clear for years - as you knew perfectly well.
Your final question is interesting, though, it intimates that the point of such questioning isn't really to illicit a genuine response (and you already knew mine) it's to try to flush out the 'wrong' answer so such people can be beaten with the stick of transphobia repeatedly.
The LD problem is that electorally they are stuck in - and need to win - seats full of wealthy, elderly homeowners whose concerns are essentially orthogonal to what is needed for the country.
Although that’s actually the UK’s issue, just in miniature, I suppose.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
Being the fourth party in the commons, and so losing the weekly three questions at PMQs has to be part of it. The coalition stench on them amongst leftwingers must be fading now, you would think. It's bizarre the lib dems haven't been able to capitalize on their remainerism in a broader way than just byelections.
Tiverton & Honiton, Chesham & Amersham and North Shropshire have shown there's life in the old psychopaths yet. Small yet satisfying local advances and some decent local election results are symptomatic of a slow but steady recovery and we forget (intentionally or otherwise) the Party surpassed the Conservatives in Councillor numbers while only having 22 seats in the Commons.
It took a long time to persuade voters who were happy to back the party locally to consider backing the party at a General Election and equidistance played a big part in that at the time.
The recovery of local strength will be an integral part in the recovery of constituency strength - with every Ward won, every Councillor elected and every Council claimed, the Party inches back but it took the first era of community politics 27 years to advance from 6 seats to 46 seats.
The other thing where the LD leadership shot themselves in the foot this year in terms of getting media attention was by cancelling their conference at the last minute.
Do you seriously think, given everything else going on at the time, anyone would have been interested in the pontifications of the LDs or indeed any political party?
Perhaps not, but the LDs as a minor party don't have an easy challenge, it is upon them to try to force attention, to seize every moment they might get in the limelight. They don't get many opportunities that won't get co-opted by a more major party, so they cannot afford to miss any.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks - this is just you trying to publicly defuse what you think might prove a damaging line of attack that could prevent votes for a Labour majority government. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
You refer to "oodles of evidence" in your second paragraph. Could you point us to some of it?
I think what you're missing is that the dogma and wokeness you object to so much is not very influential within the Labour Party these days. Most of it is from radical individuals and people on Twitter who would never dream of joining the Labour Party, though some of it may be from ex-Labour Party members. But Nick is right on the substantive point - current Labour Party members and activists are dominated by those who want to kick the Tories out and create a fairer society.
The problem with CR's hypothesis is Corbyn. If CR were right that Starmer and his allies are incredibly woke, then why did the right of the Labour Party have such a strong dislike for Corbyn? I suppose you can say it was because they recognised he was an obvious vote loser who would take the party to a terrible defeat... and while that is true to some extent, the extent of the dislike can't be explained by that alone. The answer is it's precisely because they believed Corbyn didn't like this country and was ashamed of its history. By contrast, his opponents in the Labour Party actually like the UK, believe Britain is a force for good in the world, are solidly unionist, and are proud of the role Labour played in WW2 and helping found NATO. None of these views sit well with 'wokeness'. It's the Corybnite wing of the party which was truly woke, but they are now effectively powerless.
Not really, or at least when it refers to Corbyn and his inner circle.
Corbyn is an old-fashioned Marxist. His predominant aim is the triumph of the working class and a classless society. To people of his ilk, identity issues are a negative because they distract people from what should be the true struggle ie class, imperialism etc. Saying a rich woman is oppressed because she is a woman would be disowned by Corbyn - his focus would be on the 'rich' part.
Now, he - and his circle - couldn't say that as that would have been unpopular in much of the Labour party and especially amongst his young followers. But note how Corbyn's support, while there, was always quite muted when it came to these issues. He was always a lot more vocal about the Middle East, class poverty etc.
The woke issue is more the result of more 'modern' Marxist influenced philosophers who state the view that, to truly bring about a reformation of society, you have to abolish the family by undermining its traditional structures - marriage, family, sex etc. Corbyn was on the same spectrum but he was more at the class economic end of Marxism.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The other thing where the LD leadership shot themselves in the foot this year in terms of getting media attention was by cancelling their conference at the last minute.
Do you seriously think, given everything else going on at the time, anyone would have been interested in the pontifications of the LDs or indeed any political party?
Of course - millions of people were bored out of their skulls while others were obsessing about live-streaming a queue in central London.
That's one perspective - the problem is even if you're right the media were obsessed on one story and nothing the LDs said or did at their Conference would have made an impact - unless they passed a resolution supporting a Republic but the kind of Party members who wanted that kind of thing had long since defected to the Conservatives.
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
Being the fourth party in the commons, and so losing the weekly three questions at PMQs has to be part of it. The coalition stench on them amongst leftwingers must be fading now, you would think. It's bizarre the lib dems haven't been able to capitalize on their remainerism in a broader way than just byelections.
Tiverton & Honiton, Chesham & Amersham and North Shropshire have shown there's life in the old psychopaths yet. Small yet satisfying local advances and some decent local election results are symptomatic of a slow but steady recovery and we forget (intentionally or otherwise) the Party surpassed the Conservatives in Councillor numbers while only having 22 seats in the Commons.
It took a long time to persuade voters who were happy to back the party locally to consider backing the party at a General Election and equidistance played a big part in that at the time.
The recovery of local strength will be an integral part in the recovery of constituency strength - with every Ward won, every Councillor elected and every Council claimed, the Party inches back but it took the first era of community politics 27 years to advance from 6 seats to 46 seats.
True, but the Lib dems have 2500 councillors now, vs 5000 in the mid 90s. It's a long road...
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
What illiberal, anti-innovation shite.
Hmm. I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand it does seem like it is for the state to decide who can accept the cash the state produces, and how they do it.
The other thing where the LD leadership shot themselves in the foot this year in terms of getting media attention was by cancelling their conference at the last minute.
Do you seriously think, given everything else going on at the time, anyone would have been interested in the pontifications of the LDs or indeed any political party?
Of course - millions of people were bored out of their skulls while others were obsessing about live-streaming a queue in central London.
That's one perspective - the problem is even if you're right the media were obsessed on one story and nothing the LDs said or did at their Conference would have made an impact - unless they passed a resolution supporting a Republic but the kind of Party members who wanted that kind of thing had long since defected to the Conservatives.
They cancelled it because they were afraid of bad press. They should be welcoming any kind of coverage, even if it is Laurence Fox having a meltdown on Twitter.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
What illiberal, anti-innovation shite.
Hmm. I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand it does seem like it is for the state to decide who can accept the cash the state produces, and how they do it.
No way.
Accepting and handling cash can be a major faff for some small traders. If people who prefer cash don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
What illiberal, anti-innovation shite.
Hmm. I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand it does seem like it is for the state to decide who can accept the cash the state produces, and how they do it.
No way.
Accepting and handling cash can be a major faff for some small traders. If people who prefer cash don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere.
I think that should be permissable, but I also think its not unreasonable for governments to set the rules on these things.
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
Being the fourth party in the commons, and so losing the weekly three questions at PMQs has to be part of it. The coalition stench on them amongst leftwingers must be fading now, you would think. It's bizarre the lib dems haven't been able to capitalize on their remainerism in a broader way than just byelections.
Tiverton & Honiton, Chesham & Amersham and North Shropshire have shown there's life in the old psychopaths yet. Small yet satisfying local advances and some decent local election results are symptomatic of a slow but steady recovery and we forget (intentionally or otherwise) the Party surpassed the Conservatives in Councillor numbers while only having 22 seats in the Commons.
It took a long time to persuade voters who were happy to back the party locally to consider backing the party at a General Election and equidistance played a big part in that at the time.
The recovery of local strength will be an integral part in the recovery of constituency strength - with every Ward won, every Councillor elected and every Council claimed, the Party inches back but it took the first era of community politics 27 years to advance from 6 seats to 46 seats.
True, but the Lib dems have 2500 councillors now, vs 5000 in the mid 90s. It's a long road...
But as long as it's a road with potholes they can point at, they'll be fine.
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
Being the fourth party in the commons, and so losing the weekly three questions at PMQs has to be part of it. The coalition stench on them amongst leftwingers must be fading now, you would think. It's bizarre the lib dems haven't been able to capitalize on their remainerism in a broader way than just byelections.
Tiverton & Honiton, Chesham & Amersham and North Shropshire have shown there's life in the old psychopaths yet. Small yet satisfying local advances and some decent local election results are symptomatic of a slow but steady recovery and we forget (intentionally or otherwise) the Party surpassed the Conservatives in Councillor numbers while only having 22 seats in the Commons.
It took a long time to persuade voters who were happy to back the party locally to consider backing the party at a General Election and equidistance played a big part in that at the time.
The recovery of local strength will be an integral part in the recovery of constituency strength - with every Ward won, every Councillor elected and every Council claimed, the Party inches back but it took the first era of community politics 27 years to advance from 6 seats to 46 seats.
True, but the Lib Dems have 2500 councillors now, vs 5000 in the mid 90s. It's a long road...
I'm not sure there are as many Council seats as there were owing to local Government re-organisation but it's a fair point and suggests there are still plenty of Conservative seats to be taken in successive electoral cycles.
The Conservatives have less than 7,000 Councillors and Labour less than 6,000 Councillors - my recollection is of the Conservatives having 11,000 Councillors back in the early 80s but with the expansion of Unitary authorities and the end of two-tier Councils in many areas the actual number of Councillors has fallen below 20,000.
No sign of travel chaos. Roads blissfully clear up here. Maybe everyone travelled early?
Deathly quiet around here today too. Anecdotally from local social media posts a lot of people have either cancelled their trips because they thought it would be a nightmare, or have cancelled as they (or the person they were going to visit) are loaded with the lurgy that's doing the rounds.
I do hope it stays that way when I'm driving tomorrow. A nice easy run down the M5 would suit me fine.
I'm confused. Are you driving, or running, down the M5? The latter may not be wise.
Penny Mordaunt has written quite an interesting piece on Con Home about dystopian Britain we would now be experiencing had the country voted for Ed Miliband in 2015.
It’s actually quite good, although it makes a number of claims which seem suspect (has crime really halved under the Tories?).
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
There are a lot of us in Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Esher, Carshalton, Winchester ...
And Bath and North Oxford and West Edinburgh and Chesham and Amersham.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
And supporting the Conservatives if you are under age 50 is weird.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
What illiberal, anti-innovation shite.
Hmm. I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand it does seem like it is for the state to decide who can accept the cash the state produces, and how they do it.
No way.
Accepting and handling cash can be a major faff for some small traders. If people who prefer cash don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere.
No, I think that's unnecessary exclusive and legitimises it.
Penny Mordaunt has written quite an interesting piece on Con Home about dystopian Britain we would now be experiencing had the country voted for Ed Miliband in 2015.
It’s actually quite good, although it makes a number of claims which seem suspect (has crime really halved under the Tories?).
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Cost of transporting and banking cash can be expensive. Be interesting to know how that stacks up against card fees. Also, I wonder if you don't except cash how that effects insurance, because obviously no cash, far less likely somebody is going to rob a small shop.
I doubt if the cost of higher insurance is significant higher than the cost of renting the machine.
Penny Mordaunt has written quite an interesting piece on Con Home about dystopian Britain we would now be experiencing had the country voted for Ed Miliband in 2015.
It’s actually quite good, although it makes a number of claims which seem suspect (has crime really halved under the Tories?).
Comments
Cocks in Frocks likely to be less popular across the Red Wall.
The most recent YouGov:
9% of 18-24s
18% of 25-49s
23% of 50-64s
The Lab/Con crossover age is probably about 70 right now.
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1606606379862605824?cxt=HHwWgICy2bD_58ssAAAA
I agree with Angela. It's excruciating. He hasn't got a clue. His questions are just embarrassing (apart from "would you like sausages?").
The tyranny of card-only payments
Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tyranny-of-card-only-payments/
The Tories and their Mail/GBeebies friends successfully weaponised stupidity and ignorance. But failed to actually deliver what they had promised to deliver - jobs, prosperity, services. So a chunk of people will fall back to not voting, a lot will go back to Labour, a few will stick it out with the Tories, and a mad number will go REFUK.
I suppose you can say it was because they recognised he was an obvious vote loser who would take the party to a terrible defeat... and while that is true to some extent, the extent of the dislike can't be explained by that alone. The answer is it's precisely because they believed Corbyn didn't like this country and was ashamed of its history. By contrast, his opponents in the Labour Party actually like the UK, believe Britain is a force for good in the world, are solidly unionist, and are proud of the role Labour played in WW2 and helping found NATO. None of these views sit well with 'wokeness'.
It's the Corybnite wing of the party which was truly woke, but they are now effectively powerless.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-64086021
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all. The subtext of her argument, I think, is that discrimination against trans people is actually fine, but she's not prepared to say so openly.
On topic, if Labour get 30% of the vote in the next GE, they will be in the territory of taking significant numbers of seats off the SNP.
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Not that surprising. Churchill and Clement Davies had worked together closely in the 1930s when Davies was chair of the All-Party Action Group working against appeasement and Neville Chamberlain.
However, in many other ways they were actually very unlike. Davies was an opponent of apartheid, for example, and an advocate of one world government. I can understand he would have felt it impossible to abide by collective security in a Conservative government led by Churchill and Eden.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
I am not for one moment dismissing the concerns women have. I want to go after the real problem. Which with the greatest respect to their concerns isn't the GRA flawed as it is.
Once it gets over that card starts to make major savings.
This is one reason as well why many stores still have minimum spend on card.
The reason I don’t is due to Anti-Money laundering requirements.
There were 233,740 migrants apprehended along the U.S. southern border in November, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection- a 1% increase from October's record - breaking apprehensions and marked the highest ever number of border crossings ever recorded for the month of November.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/record-number-migrants-crossed-southern-border-november-cbp/story?id=95772027
I hope those same Labour rampers will now issue an apology.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
This is from 2019 and has cash costing 9% vs electronic 1.75%. (9% sounds high but it will be much more than 1.75%)
And since then electronic costs will have come down through competition whereas labour intensive cash will be going up with wage inflation.
Cash is still cheaper if you have multiple small transactions. Which is what even now most small shops and takeaways have round here.
So no apology required.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
What the Conservatives want to worry about with the yellows is not that the Lib Dems sweep to power picking up vast swathes of seats between Dudley and Peterborough, because that isn't going to happen (you want to worry about Labour there). It's that they pick up a cluster of seats in the South and a handful of tempting targets elsewhere, and end up with 30-40 seats that would otherwise be in the Tory column.
You risk making it MORE likely with the sort of reverse-snobbery that screams, "just screw all the cappuccino-sipping lawyers on commuter trains from Dorking, and the chartered surveyors with their holidays in the Dordogne, fretting about a new Barrett estate in the green belt or whatever - you can all just eff off and vote for Ed Davey".
Also worth pointing out that North Shropshire wasn't packed with Remainers, and Tiverton & Honiton is neither big on Remainers nor graduates.
Since then there has been a clear if modest swing from SNP to Labour.
I personally don’t buy the “Curtice thesis” that in pursuing English red wall votes, Starmer is sacrificing Scottish indy-curious ones.
Curious how the possibility of being detained in a woman’s prison rather than a man’s prison seems to bring this on.
Like the computer in War Games, declining to play really is smart.
They also talk about timings, but I note they haven't included the time involved in setting up the terminal to take the payment.
Edit - although come to think of it, you still need pound coins as a deposit for the lockers.
Maybe everyone travelled early?
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
If the banks had any sense, they would abolish card charges to eliminate cash, for that reason.
And then would reimpose them when they had succeeded, because they're cynical bastards who skim you top and bottom.
But if you wanted to satirise Ed Davey, where would you even begin?
(Much like Rishi, actually. Private Eye look like they're not bothering to give him his own parody, just sticking with the Cabinet Groupchat thing they started with Boris.)
If on the other hand, you have a fully functioning penis, and you enjoy putting it in things, and have no intention of doing otherwise, you're clearly not a woman. End of. The cut-off point is the cut-off point.
And my position really didn't need "clarifying" it's been clear for years - as you knew perfectly well.
Your final question is interesting, though, it intimates that the point of such questioning isn't really to illicit a genuine response (and you already knew mine) it's to try to flush out the 'wrong' answer so such people can be beaten with the stick of transphobia repeatedly.
Although that’s actually the UK’s issue, just in miniature, I suppose.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
It took a long time to persuade voters who were happy to back the party locally to consider backing the party at a General Election and equidistance played a big part in that at the time.
The recovery of local strength will be an integral part in the recovery of constituency strength - with every Ward won, every Councillor elected and every Council claimed, the Party inches back but it took the first era of community politics 27 years to advance from 6 seats to 46 seats.
As in worse than Theresa May.
There’s a puppyish earnestness in there which is not unappealing but overall it’s shocking that he’s supposed to be the First Lord of the Admiralty.
Corbyn is an old-fashioned Marxist. His predominant aim is the triumph of the working class and a classless society. To people of his ilk, identity issues are a negative because they distract people from what should be the true struggle ie class, imperialism etc. Saying a rich woman is oppressed because she is a woman would be disowned by Corbyn - his focus would be on the 'rich' part.
Now, he - and his circle - couldn't say that as that would have been unpopular in much of the Labour party and especially amongst his young followers. But note how Corbyn's support, while there, was always quite muted when it came to these issues. He was always a lot more vocal about the Middle East, class poverty etc.
The woke issue is more the result of more 'modern' Marxist influenced philosophers who state the view that, to truly bring about a reformation of society, you have to abolish the family by undermining its traditional structures - marriage, family, sex etc. Corbyn was on the same spectrum but he was more at the class economic end of Marxism.
No amount of denialism on here will change the fact.
So, that's what she will do.
Accepting and handling cash can be a major faff for some small traders. If people who prefer cash don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere.
The Conservatives have less than 7,000 Councillors and Labour less than 6,000 Councillors - my recollection is of the Conservatives having 11,000 Councillors back in the early 80s but with the expansion of Unitary authorities and the end of two-tier Councils in many areas the actual number of Councillors has fallen below 20,000.
Well, I wanted to flag up your error.
It’s actually quite good, although it makes a number of claims which seem suspect (has crime really halved under the Tories?).
https://conservativehome.com/2022/12/23/penny-mordaunt-britain-would-have-paid-a-high-price-for-choosing-chaos-with-ed-miliband/
Cash should be a right.