On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
Yep - I am expecting something along the lines of: “We knew the Tory Brexit deal was bad but now we’ve seen the books it’s turned out to be even worse than that. We’ll need to take radical action to improve things.” As no-one beyond what will have become the entirely irrelevant ERG will care that much, it’s pretty much an open goal.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Cost
We are 100 times richer than they were back then. Yet they built better houses
The ones that survived are better, for sure. But building houses with two foot thick granite is massively expensive. Doing it on a scale that delivers a return would require huge investment. Do it in Cornwall and you’re basically excluding the locals even more than they are excluded now. All that said, I totally take your point!
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
If this happens, would the Tories run for election promising a return to the current House of Lords? I doubt it. Because it's a system no one in their right mind would suggest was ideal. That's why no other country sees it and thinks that's just what we need.
Unbelievable t heamount of these Russian Oligrach's who manage to fall out of hotel windows. You would think by now they would insist on ground floor rooms.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
Yep - I am expecting something along the lines of: “We knew the Tory Brexit deal was bad but now we’ve seen the books it’s turned out to be even worse than that. We’ll need to take radical action to improve things.” As no-one beyond what will have become the entirely irrelevant ERG will care that much, it’s pretty much an open goal.
Yes. Never forget that Starmer is not just a Remainer he was a 2nd voter - he led the campaign to overturn the referendum (shocking and unforgivable - but that’s a different argument). He’s as Remainery as it is possible to get. He is quite likely to have an historically sizeable majority - one that will be severely reduced or eliminated in the next GE but one. The temptation to seize the moment will be too much
He can also point to the utterly inept handling of immigration by the Tories - from the 500,000 migrants in one year to the Dinghy People - and say “immigration is out of control anyway”
And he will be right. He will have an open goal and the open goal will be a result of crass Tory incompetence and infighting. The ERG - and others in the Tory party - will only have themselves to blame
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
Some members - a small minority - are experts. The rest are political shills and donors, stuck in there because of who they know rather than because of any expertise. It is an anachronism totally unsuited for the modern world.
At the very least we need a wholesale clearout of all the people there because of who their father was or because of "services to politics". An appointment committee wholly disconnected from politics so that you can no longer buy a seat through donations to the Conservative Party.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Successful politicians in a liberal democracy have to lie. That’s all there is to it. Because we demand the impossible they are obliged to offer it
Churchill lied. Thatcher lied. Blair lied. Roosevelt lied to the American people about the US not getting involved in WW2. That was a good lie
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
"We knew it was bad, but we're shocked at how bad" will do a lot of work for the next government, I reckon.
As for the degree of Brapprochment, I reckon Starmer is more the Moses/John the Baptist figure; leading his people towards the promised land, but not getting there himself. The electorate and political cast need to change some more before "sorry about that awkwardness, but it wasn't actually us" is going to be credible. But Freedom for Britain to Prosper (with safeguards) will come in time.
If only the 2019-24 government hadn't screwed up so badly. But a team who were better at government might never have won in 2019...
Two years is an eternity in politics. The short-lived Truss premiership will be ancient history by then.
It's the highly likely squeeze in living standards over the next couple of years that is worrying for the Party. Of course it's China's and Putin's fault, not theirs, and Labour have absolutely no idea what to do anything about it (most of their plans would make it rather worse) but that won't cut much ice.
Also Sunak is not at all charismatic. Neither is Starmer, of course, but he's not 20 points behind.
I would say Sunak is more charismatic than Starmer
Sunak's problem is the same as Brown's and Miliband's and Hague's and May's. His tone-deaf spin doctors keep sending him on photo-ops that make him look stupid and out of touch, from his bafflement at contactless payments, to asking homeless eaters whether they are in business.
His problem is not just that he looks out of touch, he actually *is* out of touch.
All the more reason for not advertising the fact.
Sunak’s problem is actually that the zeitgeist is now against him on this - he didn’t actually ask a homeless guy if he worked in finance but that is what people could easily believe.
Much as Brown as the Clunking Fist was people projecting onto his actions with that interpretation.
He proved that he is an empty suit who is totally incapable of talking to real people and has no inkling of what actually goes on in the country for your average person.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
Yep - I am expecting something along the lines of: “We knew the Tory Brexit deal was bad but now we’ve seen the books it’s turned out to be even worse than that. We’ll need to take radical action to improve things.” As no-one beyond what will have become the entirely irrelevant ERG will care that much, it’s pretty much an open goal.
Yes. Never forget that Starmer is not just a Remainer he was a 2nd voter - he led the campaign to overturn the referendum (shocking and unforgivable - but that’s a different argument). He’s as Remainery as it is possible to get. He is quite likely to have an historically sizeable majority - one that will be severely reduced or eliminated in the next GE but one. The temptation to seize the moment will be too much
He can also point to the utterly inept handling of immigration by the Tories - from the 500,000 migrants in one year to the Dinghy People - and say “immigration is out of control anyway”
And he will be right. He will have an open goal and the open goal will be a result of crass Tory incompetence and infighting. The ERG - and others in the Tory party - will only have themselves to blame
We have two structural problems: 1. A mass labour shortage in key industries, and 2. A refugee crisis where the relatively small numbers who arrive come illegally
It isn't a radical leap to start matching unfillable vacancies to arriving refugees. The weaponised stupid believe aslyum seekers are coming here for benefits - despite no benefits being given to asylum seekers. But if them getting handouts is the problem, put them to work doing the jobs we don't want to do...
I think it extremely likely that Labour will win next time.
That said, there is a sizeable centre-right vote, even in current polling, which will gravitate to the Conservatives in the run up to the next election. I'd be very surprised if the Conservatives don't end up on 34/35%..
In terms of overall incompetence and veniality, not to mention outright criminality among MPs, I don't think there's really been all that much to choose between the Conservatives and Labour, since 2000, and I would expect that to remain the case after 2024.
Can I just say that 1883, the prequel to Yelllowstone, is excellent
A simple old fashioned western. The male lead is handsome, white, dependable, honourable, and reliably homicidal in a likeable way. Villains are simply shot dead on sight with no faff about stupid Woke concepts like “justice”
Animals are gutted. Germans are mocked. The women are beautiful and kneel as they serve food to the men. It’s great
It is indeed and the followup 1923 looks like it will be interesting as well, episodes just started coming out. The English was not bad as well, not as good as 1883 but watchable for sure.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Whether wittingly or not, they built for the future. They built handsome sturdy things that look good - even better - as the years pass. Must have been expensive and difficult, but worth it
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
I'm in favour of retaining the Lords, but it isn't working right.
People buy peerages through political donations and cronyism, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that, and they don't then bother to attend to conribute to the Chamber, they just wanted a title (Lord Lebedev being an example). They aren't adding any value, its just pure political corruption.
Too many MPs and ex-MPs get appointed as compared to leading people who might not generally stand for parliament but have expertise worth contributing. Something like 150 of them used to be MPs I think, and their impact will probably be disproportionate as they are probably amongst those who turn up more often (only about half attend regularly).
The Tories should have done some minor tweaks to curb the worst aspects of the Lords*, which would have obviated any obvious need (besides 'principle') for Labour to radically alter it. They've missed their shot, and so now the need to do something falls on the party who intend to do more rather than less.
* as mentioned ad naseum these could be very straightforward and have immediate effect, like preventing ex-MPs from appointment straight away, limiting the overall size, attendance requirements, doners not being appointed etc.
Two years is an eternity in politics. The short-lived Truss premiership will be ancient history by then.
It's the highly likely squeeze in living standards over the next couple of years that is worrying for the Party. Of course it's China's and Putin's fault, not theirs, and Labour have absolutely no idea what to do anything about it (most of their plans would make it rather worse) but that won't cut much ice.
Also Sunak is not at all charismatic. Neither is Starmer, of course, but he's not 20 points behind.
I would say Sunak is more charismatic than Starmer
Sunak's problem is the same as Brown's and Miliband's and Hague's and May's. His tone-deaf spin doctors keep sending him on photo-ops that make him look stupid and out of touch, from his bafflement at contactless payments, to asking homeless eaters whether they are in business.
His problem is not just that he looks out of touch, he actually *is* out of touch.
All the more reason for not advertising the fact.
Sunak’s problem is actually that the zeitgeist is now against him on this - he didn’t actually ask a homeless guy if he worked in finance but that is what people could easily believe.
Much as Brown as the Clunking Fist was people projecting onto his actions with that interpretation.
He proved that he is an empty suit who is totally incapable of talking to real people and has no inkling of what actually goes on in the country for your average person.
Having seen him speaking to ordinary people - and been one of the ordinary people he talked to - I have to say that this assessment is just wrong. He is a genuinely charming and decent man. His problem is that he is disconnected from the day to day struggles. Yes he asked a homeless man if he worked in finance, but that was in response to the homeless man asking him questions about the economy.
No, the real eye-opener was his petrol station adventure. He had No Clue how contactless payments work. So he does not actually pay for things himself which makes it almost impossible for him to understand just how difficult it is for so many people to have the cash to do so.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Whether wittingly or not, they built for the future. They built handsome sturdy things that look good - even better - as the years pass. Must have been expensive and difficult, but worth it
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
I completely agree about good shoes.
That said, a lot of jerry-building took place in the 18th and 19th centuries. All kinds of dreadful slums that were a nightmare to live in.
It was The Daily Mail that scuppered Penny. Perhap Dacre will get his peerage - only from a grateful Sir Keir. And the Tory membership didn't vote for Truss as she was more normal - they voted for her as she was a right wing dingbat.
Penny scuppered herself by pretending that she hadn't said things that she had said. She would have been better sticking to her guns and pitching herself as a one nation, socially liberal Brexiteer. A small target audience perhaps, and vanishingly so in the Tory selectorate, but an honest one.
A weak useless grasping self loving coward, she got her just desserts.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Whether wittingly or not, they built for the future. They built handsome sturdy things that look good - even better - as the years pass. Must have been expensive and difficult, but worth it
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
That is so very right. Quality is always the best long-term investment. An over-focus on cost minimisation is the perennial British disease in so many areas of our national life and it has inflicted a huge amount of damage.
Apols if already linked to, but a v. interesting piece from the New Yorker on the ground war in Ukraine, partly because of the rarity of embedded Anglophone journalists; as always a lot of the interest lies in the the technicalities and minutiae. There seems to be potential for friction between Ukr and International units, particularly as the latter can leave at any time and refuse to carry out a specific order/mission. Kiwis prominent, which may or may not please Gardenwalker.
3-10 years in clink for disobeying an order in the AFU. That must chafe the dick when the foreigners can check out for Ibiza any time they like.
That article makes it sound like being at fucking Austerlitz.
No disrespect to the Internationals who are putting their balls on the line repeatedly, but one wonders how much value they have in the old war fighting. I assume for Kiev it's mostly about the pr and making the West feel invested, similar to the original International Brigades.
The fantasists and fatties will be legging it for Warsaw Chopin at the first whiff of grapeshot so the ones who are still there will be the truly committed, the psychos and the GRU spies. They probably have some value but I can't imaging the AFU trust them at all.
My Saudi mate from my Arabic course had had a gap year dalliance with ISIS. He reckoned that 95% of the war tourists arriving in The State were a military net negative. He put himself in this cohort and departed for the fleshpots of Amman and Beirut with all possible haste.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Whether wittingly or not, they built for the future. They built handsome sturdy things that look good - even better - as the years pass. Must have been expensive and difficult, but worth it
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
Can I just say that 1883, the prequel to Yelllowstone, is excellent
A simple old fashioned western. The male lead is handsome, white, dependable, honourable, and reliably homicidal in a likeable way. Villains are simply shot dead on sight with no faff about stupid Woke concepts like “justice”
Animals are gutted. Germans are mocked. The women are beautiful and kneel as they serve food to the men. It’s great
It is indeed and the followup 1923 looks like it will be interesting as well, episodes just started coming out. The English was not bad as well, not as good as 1883 but watchable for sure.
I couldn’t get on with The English. I love 1883. Best TV western for decades. Shows there is a huge yearning for straight up non-lecturing drama
It has got criticisms from lefty journalists that it perpetuates stereotypes and the cast is not diverse and representative and OH FUCK OFF SHUT UP SIT DOWN
Wokeness is the death of art
Ironically, if the Woke journalists could take off their Outrage Goggles, they’d notice that the taciturn black character Thomas is one of the most compelling, sympathetic performances on any show at the moment. And the writers absolutely touch on his race. The difference is the writers don’t shove the sermon down your throat.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Whether wittingly or not, they built for the future. They built handsome sturdy things that look good - even better - as the years pass. Must have been expensive and difficult, but worth it
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
On that note I thought you might like these lads which recently came into my possession. They're Crockett & Jones therefore some of the best brogues you can buy, and yet...they are blue. Hoping I can punt them to a Rangers supporter.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Whether wittingly or not, they built for the future. They built handsome sturdy things that look good - even better - as the years pass. Must have been expensive and difficult, but worth it
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
On that note I thought you might like these lads which recently came into my possession. They're Crockett & Jones therefore some of the best brogues you can buy, and yet...they are blue. Hoping I can punt them to a Rangers supporter.
Crockett and Jones are my favourite. Horribly pricey but so stylish and classic
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
That is certainly likely. But politics is always about balance, and in fingering what is going to happen to Starmer you have forgotten the other side of the equation - what will happen to Sunak.
The Tories have utterly utterly fucked this country. The pervading sense of a country where nothing works and everything is very expensive is everywhere, so even if Starmer struggles with "so what would YOU do?" questions, the answer isn't going to be "lets stick with the Tories".
The political wildcard remains Farage and REFUK. I think the temptation will be too much for him - there are plenty of voters hungry for a sink the migrants solution and they feel the Tories have failed them. This is a direct mirror of what you said people will "hammer" Starmer over. They will - but at the same time Sunak also gets hammered. And a significant chunk of the how Labour win math is Tory voters staying home or voting REFUK.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
Two years is an eternity in politics. The short-lived Truss premiership will be ancient history by then.
It's the highly likely squeeze in living standards over the next couple of years that is worrying for the Party. Of course it's China's and Putin's fault, not theirs, and Labour have absolutely no idea what to do anything about it (most of their plans would make it rather worse) but that won't cut much ice.
Also Sunak is not at all charismatic. Neither is Starmer, of course, but he's not 20 points behind.
I would say Sunak is more charismatic than Starmer
Sunak's problem is the same as Brown's and Miliband's and Hague's and May's. His tone-deaf spin doctors keep sending him on photo-ops that make him look stupid and out of touch, from his bafflement at contactless payments, to asking homeless eaters whether they are in business.
His problem is not just that he looks out of touch, he actually *is* out of touch.
All the more reason for not advertising the fact.
Sunak’s problem is actually that the zeitgeist is now against him on this - he didn’t actually ask a homeless guy if he worked in finance but that is what people could easily believe.
Much as Brown as the Clunking Fist was people projecting onto his actions with that interpretation.
He proved that he is an empty suit who is totally incapable of talking to real people and has no inkling of what actually goes on in the country for your average person.
Having seen him speaking to ordinary people - and been one of the ordinary people he talked to - I have to say that this assessment is just wrong. He is a genuinely charming and decent man. His problem is that he is disconnected from the day to day struggles. Yes he asked a homeless man if he worked in finance, but that was in response to the homeless man asking him questions about the economy.
No, the real eye-opener was his petrol station adventure. He had No Clue how contactless payments work. So he does not actually pay for things himself which makes it almost impossible for him to understand just how difficult it is for so many people to have the cash to do so.
You kind of repeated just what I said , he is so rich he has NOT a clue about real life. How can he make any concious decision of what is required for your ordinary person, he has never ever had to think about money or buying what he wants etc. He is totally unsuited to being PM and being surrounded by useless grasping crooks that the selected for his cabinet shows he really is clueless.
Two years is an eternity in politics. The short-lived Truss premiership will be ancient history by then.
It's the highly likely squeeze in living standards over the next couple of years that is worrying for the Party. Of course it's China's and Putin's fault, not theirs, and Labour have absolutely no idea what to do anything about it (most of their plans would make it rather worse) but that won't cut much ice.
Also Sunak is not at all charismatic. Neither is Starmer, of course, but he's not 20 points behind.
I would say Sunak is more charismatic than Starmer
Sunak's problem is the same as Brown's and Miliband's and Hague's and May's. His tone-deaf spin doctors keep sending him on photo-ops that make him look stupid and out of touch, from his bafflement at contactless payments, to asking homeless eaters whether they are in business.
His problem is not just that he looks out of touch, he actually *is* out of touch.
All the more reason for not advertising the fact.
Sunak’s problem is actually that the zeitgeist is now against him on this - he didn’t actually ask a homeless guy if he worked in finance but that is what people could easily believe.
Much as Brown as the Clunking Fist was people projecting onto his actions with that interpretation.
He proved that he is an empty suit who is totally incapable of talking to real people and has no inkling of what actually goes on in the country for your average person.
Having seen him speaking to ordinary people - and been one of the ordinary people he talked to - I have to say that this assessment is just wrong. He is a genuinely charming and decent man. His problem is that he is disconnected from the day to day struggles. Yes he asked a homeless man if he worked in finance, but that was in response to the homeless man asking him questions about the economy.
No, the real eye-opener was his petrol station adventure. He had No Clue how contactless payments work. So he does not actually pay for things himself which makes it almost impossible for him to understand just how difficult it is for so many people to have the cash to do so.
You kind of repeated just what I said , he is so rich he has NOT a clue about real life. How can he make any concious decision of what is required for your ordinary person, he has never ever had to think about money or buying what he wants etc. He is totally unsuited to being PM and being surrounded by useless grasping crooks that the selected for his cabinet shows he really is clueless.
People don't need to have a clue about real life for ordinary people. They need to be able to recognise where they don't have a clue and ensure they get the right information about it, and listen to those proposing solutions which will actually help.
It's lack of the latter that is the problem, not that he comes across as so elitist he probably washes his hands after shaking hands with a poor person (I got that impression when reading about a lot of communist revolutionaries too).
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
A good place to visit at any time and especially so at Christmas with the decorations round the harbour. It gets manic in the evenings and of course you have to park on the road from Newlyn and walk the last bit.
Did you sample any of the Stary Gazey pie? I think that's just before Christmas.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
Yes, Starmer is certainly a liar.
Of course, that can work in any direction- he might end up with almost everybody feeling betrayed by him.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
I'm in favour of retaining the Lords, but it isn't working right.
People buy peerages through political donations and cronyism, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that, and they don't then bother to attend to conribute to the Chamber, they just wanted a title (Lord Lebedev being an example). They aren't adding any value, its just pure political corruption.
Too many MPs and ex-MPs get appointed as compared to leading people who might not generally stand for parliament but have expertise worth contributing. Something like 150 of them used to be MPs I think, and their impact will probably be disproportionate as they are probably amongst those who turn up more often (only about half attend regularly).
The Tories should have done some minor tweaks to curb the worst aspects of the Lords*, which would have obviated any obvious need (besides 'principle') for Labour to radically alter it. They've missed their shot, and so now the need to do something falls on the party who intend to do more rather than less.
* as mentioned ad naseum these could be very straightforward and have immediate effect, like preventing ex-MPs from appointment straight away, limiting the overall size, attendance requirements, doners not being appointed etc.
It could still be reformed not replaced altogether.
However if Starmer wants a fully elected Senate and US style deadlock between the Upper House and Lower House if different parties are elected to control them that is up to him
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Whether wittingly or not, they built for the future. They built handsome sturdy things that look good - even better - as the years pass. Must have been expensive and difficult, but worth it
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
On that note I thought you might like these lads which recently came into my possession. They're Crockett & Jones therefore some of the best brogues you can buy, and yet...they are blue. Hoping I can punt them to a Rangers supporter.
That looks like the basis for a Saltire. Some masking tape and some leather paint and you're in business.
They'd look the part on any rainy day in John Finney St. Are they in Malcolm's size?
Can I just say that 1883, the prequel to Yelllowstone, is excellent
A simple old fashioned western. The male lead is handsome, white, dependable, honourable, and reliably homicidal in a likeable way. Villains are simply shot dead on sight with no faff about stupid Woke concepts like “justice”
Animals are gutted. Germans are mocked. The women are beautiful and kneel as they serve food to the men. It’s great
It is indeed and the followup 1923 looks like it will be interesting as well, episodes just started coming out. The English was not bad as well, not as good as 1883 but watchable for sure.
I couldn’t get on with The English. I love 1883. Best TV western for decades. Shows there is a huge yearning for straight up non-lecturing drama
It has got criticisms from lefty journalists that it perpetuates stereotypes and the cast is not diverse and representative and OH FUCK OFF SHUT UP SIT DOWN
Wokeness is the death of art
Ironically, if the Woke journalists could take off their Outrage Goggles, they’d notice that the taciturn black character Thomas is one of the most compelling, sympathetic performances on any show at the moment. And the writers absolutely touch on his race. The difference is the writers don’t shove the sermon down your throat.
I seem to recall the director of that Mary Queen of Scots movie a few years back being quite vocal about not wanting to work on a non diverse movie, which seemed to make their choice of project as odd as John Boorman directing Exorcist 2 when he hated everything about the first one. The movie turned out fine, but if they had wanted to apply a bit more verisimilitude it's not as though that should have been a problem, especially when the zeitgeist is all about authenticity when it comes to racial casting (preposterously so, frankly).
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
Yep, Starmer is certainly keeping quiet about his true agenda.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
Survival bias - there were plenty of shitty shacks, but the houses that survived are built like that.
Bit like how all the Roman stuff that survives is over engineered and well built. Apartment building collapses were common in Ancient Rome….
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
Yep - I am expecting something along the lines of: “We knew the Tory Brexit deal was bad but now we’ve seen the books it’s turned out to be even worse than that. We’ll need to take radical action to improve things.” As no-one beyond what will have become the entirely irrelevant ERG will care that much, it’s pretty much an open goal.
Yes. Never forget that Starmer is not just a Remainer he was a 2nd voter - he led the campaign to overturn the referendum (shocking and unforgivable - but that’s a different argument). He’s as Remainery as it is possible to get. He is quite likely to have an historically sizeable majority - one that will be severely reduced or eliminated in the next GE but one. The temptation to seize the moment will be too much
He can also point to the utterly inept handling of immigration by the Tories - from the 500,000 migrants in one year to the Dinghy People - and say “immigration is out of control anyway”
And he will be right. He will have an open goal and the open goal will be a result of crass Tory incompetence and infighting. The ERG - and others in the Tory party - will only have themselves to blame
It's hard to disagree with this.
The trouble is that one presumes Starmer wants to be re-elected after 4-5 years.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
I'm in favour of retaining the Lords, but it isn't working right.
People buy peerages through political donations and cronyism, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that, and they don't then bother to attend to conribute to the Chamber, they just wanted a title (Lord Lebedev being an example). They aren't adding any value, its just pure political corruption.
Too many MPs and ex-MPs get appointed as compared to leading people who might not generally stand for parliament but have expertise worth contributing. Something like 150 of them used to be MPs I think, and their impact will probably be disproportionate as they are probably amongst those who turn up more often (only about half attend regularly).
The Tories should have done some minor tweaks to curb the worst aspects of the Lords*, which would have obviated any obvious need (besides 'principle') for Labour to radically alter it. They've missed their shot, and so now the need to do something falls on the party who intend to do more rather than less.
* as mentioned ad naseum these could be very straightforward and have immediate effect, like preventing ex-MPs from appointment straight away, limiting the overall size, attendance requirements, doners not being appointed etc.
It could still be reformed not replaced altogether.
However if Starmer wants a fully elected Senate and US style deadlock between the Upper House and Lower House if different parties are elected to control them that is up to him
It could be, but it won't be. The Tories could have gotten ahead of this issue, and they decided to do nothing. That was their choice, but the risk was somone for whom it was a matter of interest, like Brown, would get in a position to push things, and that has happened. Starmer might well water it all down yet, it won't be a priority despite keeping things in, but something is going to happen now.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
If this happens, would the Tories run for election promising a return to the current House of Lords? I doubt it. Because it's a system no one in their right mind would suggest was ideal. That's why no other country sees it and thinks that's just what we need.
I hope they would but once they get control of the upper house after election I doubt it.
However France, Canada, Ireland, India etc get by with largely appointed upper houses and only really Australia, the US, Italy and Spain and Japan have upper houses directly elected by the voters rather than regional councillors or Parliaments of developed nations.
New Zealand, Israel, Denmark and Sweden don't even have an upper house at all just a lower house but they are much smaller than we are
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
That is certainly likely. But politics is always about balance, and in fingering what is going to happen to Starmer you have forgotten the other side of the equation - what will happen to Sunak.
The Tories have utterly utterly fucked this country. The pervading sense of a country where nothing works and everything is very expensive is everywhere, so even if Starmer struggles with "so what would YOU do?" questions, the answer isn't going to be "lets stick with the Tories".
The political wildcard remains Farage and REFUK. I think the temptation will be too much for him - there are plenty of voters hungry for a sink the migrants solution and they feel the Tories have failed them. This is a direct mirror of what you said people will "hammer" Starmer over. They will - but at the same time Sunak also gets hammered. And a significant chunk of the how Labour win math is Tory voters staying home or voting REFUK.
Yes, and don't get me wrong - the Tories have a huge amount of issues and I don't think Sunak is a fantastic candidate. However, my point is that, when it comes down to two candidates who are seen as slightly dull but don't inspire strong passions, then the policies get a lot more focus. Most of the Tory policies are out there. For Starmer, most people still don't have a clue for what he stands.
Farage is an interesting one. He might see an opportunity but I suspect he knows that the next 'big issue' for his voting base is the poor WWC being left behind. I'm not sure how comfortable he is when he comes to playing that issue (I suspect a fair bit but not as much as Brexit).
For me, this has all the hallmarks of 2010 - Tories pre-election having big leads a fair bit out from the election but the result didn't give them a majority. And for much the same reasons .
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
I'm in favour of retaining the Lords, but it isn't working right.
People buy peerages through political donations and cronyism, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that, and they don't then bother to attend to conribute to the Chamber, they just wanted a title (Lord Lebedev being an example). They aren't adding any value, its just pure political corruption.
Too many MPs and ex-MPs get appointed as compared to leading people who might not generally stand for parliament but have expertise worth contributing. Something like 150 of them used to be MPs I think, and their impact will probably be disproportionate as they are probably amongst those who turn up more often (only about half attend regularly).
The Tories should have done some minor tweaks to curb the worst aspects of the Lords*, which would have obviated any obvious need (besides 'principle') for Labour to radically alter it. They've missed their shot, and so now the need to do something falls on the party who intend to do more rather than less.
* as mentioned ad naseum these could be very straightforward and have immediate effect, like preventing ex-MPs from appointment straight away, limiting the overall size, attendance requirements, doners not being appointed etc.
It could still be reformed not replaced altogether.
However if Starmer wants a fully elected Senate and US style deadlock between the Upper House and Lower House if different parties are elected to control them that is up to him
It could be, but it won't be. The Tories could have gotten ahead of this issue, and they decided to do nothing. That was their choice, but the risk was somone for whom it was a matter of interest, like Brown, would get in a position to push things, and that has happened. Starmer might well water it all down yet, it won't be a priority despite keeping things in, but something is going to happen now.
Fine, then as soon as the Tories take control of the elected upper house they will seek to wreck Starmer's legislative agenda
I think it extremely likely that Labour will win next time.
That said, there is a sizeable centre-right vote, even in current polling, which will gravitate to the Conservatives in the run up to the next election. I'd be very surprised if the Conservatives don't end up on 34/35%..
In terms of overall incompetence and veniality, not to mention outright criminality among MPs, I don't think there's really been all that much to choose between the Conservatives and Labour, since 2000, and I would expect that to remain the case after 2024.
Wise words.
Reading the comments on here today is like reading them in 2008 when it was clear Brown had slipped up post GFC, and the damage to Labour was terminal.
The centre-left posters started to withdraw or go quiet and the centre-right ones started to get very excited. Virtually everyone else put the boot in.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
So I have been imagining PB Tories going apoplectic over Starmer's policies for private schools and non-dom status then?
As @HYUFD will no doubt remind us, Governments rarely win four elections let alone five. The Conservatives have been the leading party in Government (no one remembers the Coalition or the deal with the DUP) and there has been a Conservative Prime Minister (well, five of them) since 2010.
The way the Conservatives have comported themselves in office is going once again to be the problem. It's hard to think it's been barely three years since Johnson won an 80-seat majority - that voting coalition was made up of 75% of those voting Leave and about 20% of those voting Remain (who considered Corbyn a bigger threat than leaving the EU).
That voting bloc has been shattered largely by events - yes, there are those who will always fear Labour in any form just as there were those who feared Blair in 1997. Those who prefer a Conservative Government ad infinitum will always head for the blue team no matter what.
Starmer has done very little right or wrong - he hasn't had to. The Conservatives have metaphorically shot themselves in both feet and then finished off with one between the eyes for good measure. It's hard to think had Starmer asked for his most optimal political year he could have asked for much more.
Rightly, the focus will increasingly be on what a Labour Government will do for Britain in 2025 and beyond. As with Blair, I suspect Starmer's primary concern will be to re-assure with just an ankle of something radical - in other words, to convince the electorate the Labour Party he leads into Government will be primarily interested in mainstream economic issues, not peripheral cultural concerns (that's the cul-de-sac the Conservatives can go down as they did with the Euro).
If he can convince the electorate the party he leads is a centrist or slightly centre-left social democratic party he will win and win big. The Conservatives, by contrast, look out of touch, out of ideas and out of time.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
Starmer has already said he will continue New Labour's work and further wreck our constitution by replacing the House of Lords with a US style elected upper house.
He has also said he wants the same Gender Recognition Bill as Sturgeon has in Scotland so you can self declare a sex change before even medical confirmation.
Gordon Brown wants a new Federal UK.
Plus there will no doubt be a wealth tax etc
One of the recent political videos that went viral was a damning speech by this guy Welby who rightly eviscerated the government's shameful and immoral approach to migration.
Or, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of an established Church speaking from the House of Lords which he is a legislator in by right of his job.
"wreck our constitution" you say? Its ALREADY wrecked. An anachronistic joke where all you need to get a seat for life as a legislator is to have the right job or friends or a large enough chequebook.
No it isn't, the Lords is made up of not just religious leaders but leading academics, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, figures from culture and sport, ex politicians and the few remaining hereditaries. They offer expert scrutiny of legislation while still giving way to the elected Commons.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
I'm in favour of retaining the Lords, but it isn't working right.
People buy peerages through political donations and cronyism, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that, and they don't then bother to attend to conribute to the Chamber, they just wanted a title (Lord Lebedev being an example). They aren't adding any value, its just pure political corruption.
Too many MPs and ex-MPs get appointed as compared to leading people who might not generally stand for parliament but have expertise worth contributing. Something like 150 of them used to be MPs I think, and their impact will probably be disproportionate as they are probably amongst those who turn up more often (only about half attend regularly).
The Tories should have done some minor tweaks to curb the worst aspects of the Lords*, which would have obviated any obvious need (besides 'principle') for Labour to radically alter it. They've missed their shot, and so now the need to do something falls on the party who intend to do more rather than less.
* as mentioned ad naseum these could be very straightforward and have immediate effect, like preventing ex-MPs from appointment straight away, limiting the overall size, attendance requirements, doners not being appointed etc.
It could still be reformed not replaced altogether.
However if Starmer wants a fully elected Senate and US style deadlock between the Upper House and Lower House if different parties are elected to control them that is up to him
It could be, but it won't be. The Tories could have gotten ahead of this issue, and they decided to do nothing. That was their choice, but the risk was somone for whom it was a matter of interest, like Brown, would get in a position to push things, and that has happened. Starmer might well water it all down yet, it won't be a priority despite keeping things in, but something is going to happen now.
Fine, then as soon as the Tories take control of the elected upper house they will seek to wreck Starmer's legislative agenda
This is why you are your own worst enemy. Rather than manage change so it suits you, like Conservatives traditionally have done, you just resist and resist, then throw a tantrum if you lose out.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Agreed.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
A good place to visit at any time and especially so at Christmas with the decorations round the harbour. It gets manic in the evenings and of course you have to park on the road from Newlyn and walk the last bit.
Did you sample any of the Stary Gazey pie? I think that's just before Christmas.
Mousehole is also where all eight of the Penlee lifeboatmen lived. They died just before Christmas. I think one of them owned the pub by the harbour. The memorial is in the old lifeboat house on the road to Newlyn. It’s well worth a visit, especially at this time of year. This is also a compelling, harrowing watch, that makes clear just how brave they were: https://youtu.be/yeIX0VnUMKo
If you count that plummy colour as red, a sort of visual representation of our politics, the grey being don't know/don't care (and should be much bigger of course).
As @HYUFD will no doubt remind us, Governments rarely win four elections let alone five. The Conservatives have been the leading party in Government (no one remembers the Coalition or the deal with the DUP) and there has been a Conservative Prime Minister (well, five of them) since 2010.
The way the Conservatives have comported themselves in office is going once again to be the problem. It's hard to think it's been barely three years since Johnson won an 80-seat majority - that voting coalition was made up of 75% of those voting Leave and about 20% of those voting Remain (who considered Corbyn a bigger threat than leaving the EU).
That voting bloc has been shattered largely by events - yes, there are those who will always fear Labour in any form just as there were those who feared Blair in 1997. Those who prefer a Conservative Government ad infinitum will always head for the blue team no matter what.
Starmer has done very little right or wrong - he hasn't had to. The Conservatives have metaphorically shot themselves in both feet and then finished off with one between the eyes for good measure. It's hard to think had Starmer asked for his most optimal political year he could have asked for much more.
Rightly, the focus will increasingly be on what a Labour Government will do for Britain in 2025 and beyond. As with Blair, I suspect Starmer's primary concern will be to re-assure with just an ankle of something radical - in other words, to convince the electorate the Labour Party he leads into Government will be primarily interested in mainstream economic issues, not peripheral cultural concerns (that's the cul-de-sac the Conservatives can go down as they did with the Euro).
If he can convince the electorate the party he leads is a centrist or slightly centre-left social democratic party he will win and win big. The Conservatives, by contrast, look out of touch, out of ideas and out of time.
Barring black swans the next election will be won on three things:
Which party or coalition best represents centrism and competence. +, on this occasion, which best answers the call for 'Time for a change'.
Probabilities: 80% Labour or Labour led 20% Tories or Tory led.
Tiny footnote: On TodayR4 today, largely given over to free school meals, Osborne and Blair had plenty to say, the government had no comment, and Labour would not commit to extending FSMs.
This is Labour being serious about winning. I think their policy is to promise almost nothing, but win on the Three Cs (as above) and then deliver a little more than promised.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
A good place to visit at any time and especially so at Christmas with the decorations round the harbour. It gets manic in the evenings and of course you have to park on the road from Newlyn and walk the last bit.
Did you sample any of the Stary Gazey pie? I think that's just before Christmas.
Mousehole is also where all eight of the Penlee lifeboatmen lived. They died just before Christmas. I think one of them owned the pub by the harbour. The memorial is in the old lifeboat house on the road to Newlyn. It’s well worth a visit, especially at this time of year. This is also a compelling, harrowing watch, that makes clear just how brave they were: https://youtu.be/yeIX0VnUMKo
I was crossing the Channel that night - coming back from Denmark via West Germany and Belgium. I'd been on trains since 9am from Aarhus changing at Hamburg and Cologne - freezing cold and surviving on Bockwurst and beer.
I got to Ostend for the ferry back to Dover to be told the ferry would sail on time but the weather was worsening. I remember the night getting worse and worse - a lot of people being very sick and no one getting any sleep.
Just before 5am we were told we weren't docking at Dover but at Folkestone and we were let out through the car ferry deck as the ship was pitching in the harbour.
I was so relieved to be on dry ground and I don't know how but I got up the hill to the main station and got on a train to London with the commuters. Got back to my parents' house and just crashed. I heard about Penlee later the same day - there are plenty of brave people but the RNLI crews are right up there.
It was for Mousehole what the 1939 disaster was for St Ives.
I think it extremely likely that Labour will win next time.
That said, there is a sizeable centre-right vote, even in current polling, which will gravitate to the Conservatives in the run up to the next election. I'd be very surprised if the Conservatives don't end up on 34/35%..
In terms of overall incompetence and veniality, not to mention outright criminality among MPs, I don't think there's really been all that much to choose between the Conservatives and Labour, since 2000, and I would expect that to remain the case after 2024.
Wise words.
Reading the comments on here today is like reading them in 2008 when it was clear Brown had slipped up post GFC, and the damage to Labour was terminal.
The centre-left posters started to withdraw or go quiet and the centre-right ones started to get very excited. Virtually everyone else put the boot in.
Now, the boot is on the other foot.
Sounds like people are talking about … swing back.
Yes, I think that all Sunak has to aim for is damage limitation, not scaring the remaining horses etc.
I think there is more realism that was the case with Brown. The emotional investment in Brown was large, because he was seen as the best of New Labour - he was imagined to be Blair without the smarm, scandals and Iraq.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Whether wittingly or not, they built for the future. They built handsome sturdy things that look good - even better - as the years pass. Must have been expensive and difficult, but worth it
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
On that note I thought you might like these lads which recently came into my possession. They're Crockett & Jones therefore some of the best brogues you can buy, and yet...they are blue. Hoping I can punt them to a Rangers supporter.
That looks like the basis for a Saltire. Some masking tape and some leather paint and you're in business.
They'd look the part on any rainy day in John Finney St. Are they in Malcolm's size?
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Agreed.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
I can understand the allegation that Starmer is inept and not particularly politically savvy. And there is no excuse for one of his lackies not to respond to your wife's correspondence. I wouldn't expect him to as LOTO and your MP, but he has a handful of aides to carry out mundane tasks on his behalf
However criticism for reaching out to all potential voter factions suggests Starmer is more switched on than he is given credit for. And as to the assertion that Sunak is "nicer" than Starmer, neither have given much indication, one way or another, that they are anything but ambitious, self-serving, greasy-pole climbers. In both cases that comes with the territory, although on that score neither are a patch on the self-serving Johnson, and that didn't unduly concern PB Tories.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Agreed.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
Politics boils down to collecting up factional groups and herding them together. I’m trying to remember which politician likened it to herding cats - American I think.
Joe Biden got the job because that is one of his core skills - coalition building.
This may seem old fashioned and rather tacky. But it brings people together and builds consensus. As opposed to the Only The Pure And Faithful zealotry.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Cost
We are 100 times richer than they were back then. Yet they built better houses
Define better. That house, as built, probably didn’t have running water. Or any kind of services. A stone walled shed. Heated by fireplaces.
They are much nicer to live in, in the age of constant central heating. Once the stone has reached a nice temp…. But heat will leak furiously, unless the roof has been insulated and you keep the shutters closed on the windows.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Agreed.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
Politics boils down to collecting up factional groups and herding them together. I’m trying to remember which politician likened it to herding cats - American I think.
Joe Biden got the job because that is one of his core skills - coalition building.
This may seem old fashioned and rather tacky. But it brings people together and builds consensus. As opposed to the Only The Pure And Faithful zealotry.
You are right, successful leaderships are built with coalitions.
But Starmer wasn't hearing a coalition of groups, he was appealing to one. The others didn't get a look in nor were mentioned.
Fair enough, you may say, in the constituency, that block vote is very significant. But it gives an impression that only one group counts.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Also at that time working men were paid very poorly. Ultimately things cost what the labour cost of extracting the raw materials from the earth, transporting and making them into things, and the administration costs of doing so.
Building granite cottages in an era of living wage is exhorbitantly expensive, in an era of poverty wages less so.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Agreed.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
Politics boils down to collecting up factional groups and herding them together. I’m trying to remember which politician likened it to herding cats - American I think.
Joe Biden got the job because that is one of his core skills - coalition building.
This may seem old fashioned and rather tacky. But it brings people together and builds consensus. As opposed to the Only The Pure And Faithful zealotry.
You are right, successful leaderships are built with coalitions.
But Starmer wasn't hearing a coalition of groups, he was appealing to one. The others didn't get a look in nor were mentioned.
Fair enough, you may say, in the constituency, that block vote is very significant. But it gives an impression that only one group counts.
That’s exactly how classic politics works. Because constituencies contain large lumps of a few groups, not a perfect national average of all. Only a few groups count in each constituency. One of the key political tricks is for the politician to convince people that he is looking out for *you* - for a very specific value of “you”.
There was a rather good series of explanations of this in the series “Boss” with Kelsey Grammer as Mayor of Chicago
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Agreed.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
It's a shame because I think we really need a strong non-Tory government that shakes the Tories out of their complaceny and delivers for its base. The future stability of our democracy depends on it.
I think Blair would be just as potent now, quite frankly. I hated him at the time but I think much of that was jealously - he's simply a cut above the rest.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
That is certainly likely. But politics is always about balance, and in fingering what is going to happen to Starmer you have forgotten the other side of the equation - what will happen to Sunak.
The Tories have utterly utterly fucked this country. The pervading sense of a country where nothing works and everything is very expensive is everywhere, so even if Starmer struggles with "so what would YOU do?" questions, the answer isn't going to be "lets stick with the Tories".
The political wildcard remains Farage and REFUK. I think the temptation will be too much for him - there are plenty of voters hungry for a sink the migrants solution and they feel the Tories have failed them. This is a direct mirror of what you said people will "hammer" Starmer over. They will - but at the same time Sunak also gets hammered. And a significant chunk of the how Labour win math is Tory voters staying home or voting REFUK.
Yes, and don't get me wrong - the Tories have a huge amount of issues and I don't think Sunak is a fantastic candidate. However, my point is that, when it comes down to two candidates who are seen as slightly dull but don't inspire strong passions, then the policies get a lot more focus. Most of the Tory policies are out there. For Starmer, most people still don't have a clue for what he stands.
Farage is an interesting one. He might see an opportunity but I suspect he knows that the next 'big issue' for his voting base is the poor WWC being left behind. I'm not sure how comfortable he is when he comes to playing that issue (I suspect a fair bit but not as much as Brexit).
For me, this has all the hallmarks of 2010 - Tories pre-election having big leads a fair bit out from the election but the result didn't give them a majority. And for much the same reasons .
It all depends on Farage. The Tories have fucked up all their base issues, but could win back some support on a "the alternatives are worse" platform. But if Farage goes for it then they are truly sunk and a @Heathener landslide is on.
The problem with the weaponised stupidity and ignorance promoted by the Tories / Mail / GBeebies etc is that people now believe the political equivalent of "the sky is green" even though they can see it is blue. Farage just needs to tell the thick and angry that the Tories have failed them and harsher measures are needed - enough people will vote for it to utterly demolish the Tories.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Public school veneer =/= nice.
Quite the opposite in fact.
That's your prejudice showing.
Very Labour.
Your advocating public school polish and veneer equates to niceness? Curious.
My mid life crisis is demonstrated in two clear ways, marrying somebody nearly twenty years younger than me and secondly wearing loafers.
My most recent purchase.
Makes my midlife crisis project (becoming a YouTuber) seem mild in comparison. Maybe I should buy a pair of those to drive the Tesla in! Are they vegan...?
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Agreed.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
Politics boils down to collecting up factional groups and herding them together. I’m trying to remember which politician likened it to herding cats - American I think.
Joe Biden got the job because that is one of his core skills - coalition building.
This may seem old fashioned and rather tacky. But it brings people together and builds consensus. As opposed to the Only The Pure And Faithful zealotry.
You are right, successful leaderships are built with coalitions.
But Starmer wasn't hearing a coalition of groups, he was appealing to one. The others didn't get a look in nor were mentioned.
Fair enough, you may say, in the constituency, that block vote is very significant. But it gives an impression that only one group counts.
That’s exactly how classic politics works. Because constituencies contain large lumps of a few groups, not a perfect national average of all. Only a few groups count in each constituency. One of the key political tricks is for the politician to convince people that he is looking out for *you* - for a very specific value of “you”.
There was a rather good series of explanations of this in the series “Boss” with Kelsey Grammer as Mayor of Chicago
Absolutely, I know how it works. This is what it leads to.
40 years ago, the equivalent would be to play the Irish vote in N London constituencies.
That led to several MPs who were, let's say, sympathetic to the IRA view of the world. That may have been their original views but no doubt they were influenced by their constituencies.
Appealing to only one part of your constituents not all leads to problems.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
A good place to visit at any time and especially so at Christmas with the decorations round the harbour. It gets manic in the evenings and of course you have to park on the road from Newlyn and walk the last bit.
Did you sample any of the Stary Gazey pie? I think that's just before Christmas.
Mousehole is also where all eight of the Penlee lifeboatmen lived. They died just before Christmas. I think one of them owned the pub by the harbour. The memorial is in the old lifeboat house on the road to Newlyn. It’s well worth a visit, especially at this time of year. This is also a compelling, harrowing watch, that makes clear just how brave they were: https://youtu.be/yeIX0VnUMKo
I was crossing the Channel that night - coming back from Denmark via West Germany and Belgium. I'd been on trains since 9am from Aarhus changing at Hamburg and Cologne - freezing cold and surviving on Bockwurst and beer.
I got to Ostend for the ferry back to Dover to be told the ferry would sail on time but the weather was worsening. I remember the night getting worse and worse - a lot of people being very sick and no one getting any sleep.
Just before 5am we were told we weren't docking at Dover but at Folkestone and we were let out through the car ferry deck as the ship was pitching in the harbour.
I was so relieved to be on dry ground and I don't know how but I got up the hill to the main station and got on a train to London with the commuters. Got back to my parents' house and just crashed. I heard about Penlee later the same day - there are plenty of brave people but the RNLI crews are right up there.
It was for Mousehole what the 1939 disaster was for St Ives.
On the documentary I linked to, they have the actual radio messages being sent out from both the lifeboat and the ship it was responding to. What is so striking is the calm in the voices even as conditions got unimaginably bad and they must have known how much danger they were in. It’s an extraordinary testament to the human capacity for raw courage and grace under extreme pressure.
Look at the thickness of that wall. Built to withstand Cornish storms and autumn gales. And thick enough to hide smuggled brandy from the Revenue
Built 200 years ago of proper Cornish granite and it will last another 200 years, possibly 2000, given the chance. And it is beautiful
Why can’t we do this any more?
Our walls are that thick. And a few decades older...
What we don’t see, for obvious reasons, are all the cheaply put together homes built back then that surrounded the solidly constructed stuff.
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
I know Mousehole. It was originally built at a time when granite and slate were the only options beyond wood and cobbing. The granite buildings are still there, the wooden ones have all gone. If you go up the hills behind the old village around the harbour the houses change quite quickly. Go down the road to Newlyn and Penzance and it’s a similar story. As I say, though, I do totally take your point. We should be building a lot better than we do.
Also at that time working men were paid very poorly. Ultimately things cost what the labour cost of extracting the raw materials from the earth, transporting and making them into things, and the administration costs of doing so.
Building granite cottages in an era of living wage is exhorbitantly expensive, in an era of poverty wages less so.
Yep, master builders and craftsmen don’t live in abject poverty these days - and rightly so.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Agreed.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
Politics boils down to collecting up factional groups and herding them together. I’m trying to remember which politician likened it to herding cats - American I think.
Joe Biden got the job because that is one of his core skills - coalition building.
This may seem old fashioned and rather tacky. But it brings people together and builds consensus. As opposed to the Only The Pure And Faithful zealotry.
You are right, successful leaderships are built with coalitions.
But Starmer wasn't hearing a coalition of groups, he was appealing to one. The others didn't get a look in nor were mentioned.
Fair enough, you may say, in the constituency, that block vote is very significant. But it gives an impression that only one group counts.
That’s exactly how classic politics works. Because constituencies contain large lumps of a few groups, not a perfect national average of all. Only a few groups count in each constituency. One of the key political tricks is for the politician to convince people that he is looking out for *you* - for a very specific value of “you”.
There was a rather good series of explanations of this in the series “Boss” with Kelsey Grammer as Mayor of Chicago
Absolutely, I know how it works. This is what it leads to.
40 years ago, the equivalent would be to play the Irish vote in N London constituencies.
That led to several MPs who were, let's say, sympathetic to the IRA view of the world. That may have been their original views but no doubt they were influenced by their constituencies.
Appealing to only one part of your constituents not all leads to problems.
No, they were pro-PIRA because that is what they wanted to be.
Hence a certain ex-Mayor of London. He would would spend time and effort trying to blacken the names of PIRA victims, if their deaths caused the wrong kind of outrage.
As a special festive punishment, here are a pair of La Liga tips (for those unaware, my La Liga bets were patchy but not atrocious before I lost all my records...).
I’m in the seaside village of Mousehole, which is pretty much all like this. Solid four square granite houses for fishermen (and smugglers and wreckers). There are ancient photos on the walls of this place (the Ship Inn) showing the village in the 1880s etc. Even though the people are obviously poor and life is hard, there are no cheap nasty buildings to be seen. Quite striking
A good place to visit at any time and especially so at Christmas with the decorations round the harbour. It gets manic in the evenings and of course you have to park on the road from Newlyn and walk the last bit.
Did you sample any of the Stary Gazey pie? I think that's just before Christmas.
Mousehole is also where all eight of the Penlee lifeboatmen lived. They died just before Christmas. I think one of them owned the pub by the harbour. The memorial is in the old lifeboat house on the road to Newlyn. It’s well worth a visit, especially at this time of year. This is also a compelling, harrowing watch, that makes clear just how brave they were: https://youtu.be/yeIX0VnUMKo
I was crossing the Channel that night - coming back from Denmark via West Germany and Belgium. I'd been on trains since 9am from Aarhus changing at Hamburg and Cologne - freezing cold and surviving on Bockwurst and beer.
I got to Ostend for the ferry back to Dover to be told the ferry would sail on time but the weather was worsening. I remember the night getting worse and worse - a lot of people being very sick and no one getting any sleep.
Just before 5am we were told we weren't docking at Dover but at Folkestone and we were let out through the car ferry deck as the ship was pitching in the harbour.
I was so relieved to be on dry ground and I don't know how but I got up the hill to the main station and got on a train to London with the commuters. Got back to my parents' house and just crashed. I heard about Penlee later the same day - there are plenty of brave people but the RNLI crews are right up there.
It was for Mousehole what the 1939 disaster was for St Ives.
On the documentary I linked to, they have the actual radio messages being sent out from both the lifeboat and the ship it is was responding to. What is so striking is the calm in the voices even as conditions got unimaginably bad and they must have known how much danger they were in. It’s an extraordinary testament to the human capacity for raw courage and grace under extreme pressure.
Nothing much changes - audio recordings from WWII of bomber raids over Germany sound almost staged in the calm, understated language.
I'm sure BJO and MoonRabbit will tell us how they can recover.
See that little down tick for Tory’s on the graph in the header, I predicted that two weeks ago before it happened. See the big Tory uptick that preceeded it, I predicted that before it happened from divining just one Opinium +1 Tory share poll - saying I’m crazy or biased to the Tories is just so old hat now 😝
How’s polls moving in next few months? We have had peak Sunak, I can confidently say that. In the last few months he has been weighed and he has been measured by the voters and has been found wanting. Inexperienced and out of touch.
And compare his horrible cabinet with the heavyweights in majors. Compare the last 12 years of nothing good to say about it government with the one that came back in 92 based on the voters at the time still liking much about how the Conservatives governed in the 80s.
And for that same reason ignore HY trying to mug you with the idea Brown stopped Cameron getting a majority. He didn’t. Brown was every bit as naff as Sunak, it was liking Labours time in power on NHS, Education and not entirely blaming them for the boom and bust that kept Labour at 260 seats, fearing tge NHS in Tory hands, but there is no historical comparison here with the all mixed up horror show of 12 years without a redeeming factor to say for it.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
Yep - I am expecting something along the lines of: “We knew the Tory Brexit deal was bad but now we’ve seen the books it’s turned out to be even worse than that. We’ll need to take radical action to improve things.” As no-one beyond what will have become the entirely irrelevant ERG will care that much, it’s pretty much an open goal.
Yes. Never forget that Starmer is not just a Remainer he was a 2nd voter - he led the campaign to overturn the referendum (shocking and unforgivable - but that’s a different argument). He’s as Remainery as it is possible to get. He is quite likely to have an historically sizeable majority - one that will be severely reduced or eliminated in the next GE but one. The temptation to seize the moment will be too much
He can also point to the utterly inept handling of immigration by the Tories - from the 500,000 migrants in one year to the Dinghy People - and say “immigration is out of control anyway”
And he will be right. He will have an open goal and the open goal will be a result of crass Tory incompetence and infighting. The ERG - and others in the Tory party - will only have themselves to blame
It's hard to disagree with this.
The trouble is that one presumes Starmer wants to be re-elected after 4-5 years.
When is better than the first term for Starmer to do what he wants to do?
I personally have some doubts about both his nerve and his passion.
But he will never be as powerful as he will be at that time. The Tory Civil War that will rage through the 2020s will be at its hottest (the Sunak era will be seen historically as merely a brief respite for new and old Tories to re-group and re-arm), Corbynites will have been humiliated, Sturgeon's sunset will be on the horizon, and the Lib Dems will remain relatively weak even if they are back to having a reasonable clutch of MPs.
He's very, very likely to be re-elected in 2028, and it's never going to get better in terms of doing things he wants to do politically.
If you count that plummy colour as red, a sort of visual representation of our politics, the grey being don't know/don't care (and should be much bigger of course).
Can some-one explain to me why "Crocs" shoes are such a marmite thing? My daughter-in-law's brother's step-children received Crocs for Xmas and were delighted. My son and daughter-in-law were aghast.
I'm still of the view that the current opinion polls significantly underplay the likely level of Tory support come the next election. Jeremy Corbyn managed 32% at the last election and Rishi Sunak is undoubtedly a more credible candidate than Corbyn. The worst GE result in history for the Conservative Party, 1997, still saw their share top 30%, and the median age of the electorate has increased since then. I don't see them doing worse than 1997, and they'll probably do a bit better as much of the monied codger vote decides that it knows on which side its bread is buttered - and a third of the popular vote ought to be enough for the Tories to avert a rout and frustrate a Labour majority.
I’m driving around west Cornwall for work purposes, and what has struck me - to my total surprise - is the HIGH quality - at least visually - of many new developments (there are a lot, Cornwall is growing fast)
The developers are using elements of local stone - granite and slate. Nice elegant proportions, mixing classical and modern. The houses that are completely modern are sleek
There is very little of that horrible shoebox redbrick cul de saccy Barratt Home shite you see elsewhere in middle Britain
I wonder why. More money from incomers? The influence of the King (ex Duke of Cornwall - he has a nice Poundbury ish development on the edge of Truro)? A sensible council? All three?
Dunno. But it is encouraging. The rest of the country should look to Cornwall
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
After the advertures of Boris the Liar, are people bothered by politicians being liars any more? This is post-truth politics where it no longer matters what the facts or realities on the ground are. All that matters is that the repeated lie upsets the other side.
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
Starmer's problem is this. So far, he's benefitted from his 'opponents' being seen as nasty and vile. His dissemblance is therefore not really called out because people are so focused on getting his opponents out that they have given Starmer a free pass. That was the case with Corbyn, with Starmer being the anti-Johnson etc. Put simply, Starmer is someone who benefits immensely when his opponents are unlikeable.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
I think Sunak is a far nicer person than Starmer.
Public school veneer =/= nice.
Quite the opposite in fact.
That's your prejudice showing.
Very Labour.
Your advocating public school polish and veneer equates to niceness? Curious.
No, I said I thought Sunak was a nicer person than Starmer.
It was you that brought public schools into it.
The election of a Labour government will simply see Tory prejudices replaced with Labour ones.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
Yep - I am expecting something along the lines of: “We knew the Tory Brexit deal was bad but now we’ve seen the books it’s turned out to be even worse than that. We’ll need to take radical action to improve things.” As no-one beyond what will have become the entirely irrelevant ERG will care that much, it’s pretty much an open goal.
Yes. Never forget that Starmer is not just a Remainer he was a 2nd voter - he led the campaign to overturn the referendum (shocking and unforgivable - but that’s a different argument). He’s as Remainery as it is possible to get. He is quite likely to have an historically sizeable majority - one that will be severely reduced or eliminated in the next GE but one. The temptation to seize the moment will be too much
He can also point to the utterly inept handling of immigration by the Tories - from the 500,000 migrants in one year to the Dinghy People - and say “immigration is out of control anyway”
And he will be right. He will have an open goal and the open goal will be a result of crass Tory incompetence and infighting. The ERG - and others in the Tory party - will only have themselves to blame
It's hard to disagree with this.
The trouble is that one presumes Starmer wants to be re-elected after 4-5 years.
When is better than the first term for Starmer to do what he wants to do?
I personally have some doubts about both his nerve and his passion.
But he will never be as powerful as he will be at that time. The Tory Civil War that will rage through the 2020s will be at its hottest (the Sunak era will be seen historically as merely a brief respite for new and old Tories to re-group and re-arm), Corbynites will have been humiliated, Sturgeon's sunset will be on the horizon, and the Lib Dems will remain relatively weak even if they are back to having a reasonable clutch of MPs.
He's very, very likely to be re-elected in 2028, and it's never going to get better in terms of doing things he wants to do politically.
I'm not so sure.
The electorate is far more volatile these days and I can't see further than 6 months ahead, yet alone 6 years.
Starmer could rapidly shed votes in all directions, to the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, DNK/WNVs and even some Reform and the Tories.
If you count that plummy colour as red, a sort of visual representation of our politics, the grey being don't know/don't care (and should be much bigger of course).
Can some-one explain to me why "Crocs" shoes are such a marmite thing? My daughter-in-law's brother's step-children received Crocs for Xmas and were delighted. My son and daughter-in-law were aghast.
Crocs are having a second coming with the young. It's a bit like when flared trousers or shell suits have a revival. Those who remember them first time round cannot abide their return, but to the young they are a vintage revival.
On topic, I think the Tories are toast and Sunak cannot revive them. A further change of PM would be a further farce. They are just going through the motions now before a long period of opposition.
Not that I am optomistic for a Starmer government, and I don't expect a landslide victory.
None of them has articulated anything much more than a shuffling of the deckchairs, or a re-slicing of the pie, Starmer included.
As you suggest in your last line, it would take a good optometrist to distinguish between them.
I think a Labour government - if we get one - will be a lot bolder and more radical than is currently being signalled. I don’t think there will be much choice.
I think it’s fair to say that after an election we mostly don’t end up with the politicians that are presented to us before said election, but it seems brave to bet the house on Starmer surprising on the bold & radical upside.
I think that the SNP will be part of why he will surprise on the upside. He’ll want to make it very hard for them to vote against a minority Labour government in Parliament. I’m expecting quite a bold approach to tax and redistribution, as well as a far closer relationship with the EU than is currently being eluded to.
In that case those Redwallers are going to be dreadfully disappointed when Sir Keir doesn't follow through on electronic tagging of asylum seekers and naming & shaming of drug users; good God, there may even be backsliding on not going back to the EU, to the single market, to the customs union or freedom of movement!
I do wonder if SKS has the chutzpah to pull off such a volte-face. With Tone such slipperiness was part of the package and he was good at it, perhaps not so endearing if your USP is stolid, boring dependability.
Starmer is a proven liar (not necessarily a bad thing in a politician); he is lying about the EU. He will take us far back in as he can - the bigger the Labour majority the closer to Brussels we will go. He needs the EU to play ball tho (no certainty). He will need a new name for “Free Movement” - some tiny tweak that enables him to pretend it’s not Free Movement
If he gets that we will go back in to the SM/CU in all but name and might well rejoin within the decade
He can sell all this as dire necessity, due to the desperate times. Could work
Yep - I am expecting something along the lines of: “We knew the Tory Brexit deal was bad but now we’ve seen the books it’s turned out to be even worse than that. We’ll need to take radical action to improve things.” As no-one beyond what will have become the entirely irrelevant ERG will care that much, it’s pretty much an open goal.
Yes. Never forget that Starmer is not just a Remainer he was a 2nd voter - he led the campaign to overturn the referendum (shocking and unforgivable - but that’s a different argument). He’s as Remainery as it is possible to get. He is quite likely to have an historically sizeable majority - one that will be severely reduced or eliminated in the next GE but one. The temptation to seize the moment will be too much
He can also point to the utterly inept handling of immigration by the Tories - from the 500,000 migrants in one year to the Dinghy People - and say “immigration is out of control anyway”
And he will be right. He will have an open goal and the open goal will be a result of crass Tory incompetence and infighting. The ERG - and others in the Tory party - will only have themselves to blame
It's hard to disagree with this.
The trouble is that one presumes Starmer wants to be re-elected after 4-5 years.
When is better than the first term for Starmer to do what he wants to do?
I personally have some doubts about both his nerve and his passion.
But he will never be as powerful as he will be at that time. The Tory Civil War that will rage through the 2020s will be at its hottest (the Sunak era will be seen historically as merely a brief respite for new and old Tories to re-group and re-arm), Corbynites will have been humiliated, Sturgeon's sunset will be on the horizon, and the Lib Dems will remain relatively weak even if they are back to having a reasonable clutch of MPs.
He's very, very likely to be re-elected in 2028, and it's never going to get better in terms of doing things he wants to do politically.
I'm not so sure.
The electorate is far more volatile these days and I can't see further than 6 months ahead, yet alone 6 years.
Starmer could rapidly shed votes in all directions, to the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, DNK/WNVs and even some Reform and the Tories.
Though equally he could squeeze them for tactical votes against the government.
I am a Lib Dem, leaning Green, but for much of the population in England elections are purely two party affairs.
Comments
No. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to see how given the caution, conventionality and sheer dullness of the incumbent PM.
If Starmer gets his way and replaces the Lords with a fully elected upper house most of them won't bother to stand for election to it.
However the one good thing is the Conservative opposition could take control of the upper house on a midterm protest vote. Then with their elected mandate they could seek to block and delay every piece of legislation put forward by the Starmer government in the House of Commons. Hopefully stopping the worst legislation from it
Starmer is a liar - lets all be very clear about that. But he lied to secure the votes of anti-semite trot cultists so that he could drive them out of the Labour party. There are good lies and bad lies, I'd say those were good ones.
I doubt it. Because it's a system no one in their right mind would suggest was ideal.
That's why no other country sees it and thinks that's just what we need.
next GE but one. The temptation to seize the moment will be too much
He can also point to the utterly inept handling of immigration by the Tories - from the 500,000 migrants in one year to the Dinghy People - and say “immigration is out of control anyway”
And he will be right. He will have an open goal and the open goal will be a result of crass Tory incompetence and infighting. The ERG - and others in the Tory party - will only have themselves to blame
At the very least we need a wholesale clearout of all the people there because of who their father was or because of "services to politics". An appointment committee wholly disconnected from politics so that you can no longer buy a seat through donations to the Conservative Party.
Churchill lied. Thatcher lied. Blair lied. Roosevelt lied to the American people about the US not getting involved in WW2. That was a good lie
As for the degree of Brapprochment, I reckon Starmer is more the Moses/John the Baptist figure; leading his people towards the promised land, but not getting there himself. The electorate and political cast need to change some more before "sorry about that awkwardness, but it wasn't actually us" is going to be credible. But Freedom for Britain to Prosper (with safeguards) will come in time.
If only the 2019-24 government hadn't screwed up so badly. But a team who were better at government might never have won in 2019...
1. A mass labour shortage in key industries, and
2. A refugee crisis where the relatively small numbers who arrive come illegally
It isn't a radical leap to start matching unfillable vacancies to arriving refugees. The weaponised stupid believe aslyum seekers are coming here for benefits - despite no benefits being given to asylum seekers. But if them getting handouts is the problem, put them to work doing the jobs we don't want to do...
That said, there is a sizeable centre-right vote, even in current polling, which will gravitate to the Conservatives in the run up to the next election. I'd be very surprised if the Conservatives don't end up on 34/35%..
In terms of overall incompetence and veniality, not to mention outright criminality among MPs, I don't think there's really been all that much to choose between the Conservatives and Labour, since 2000, and I would expect that to remain the case after 2024.
It reminds me of excellent advice I got as a young man. “Always spend as much as you can on shoes. Women notice shoes. And expensive shoes are cheaper in the long run because you don’t have to replace them”
So true. As a nation we keep buying cheap shoes, then we look down aghast as we realise we are wearing tatty trainers from Tesco that need to be replaced AGAIN
It is time for Britain to buy Jermyn street brogues
People buy peerages through political donations and cronyism, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that, and they don't then bother to attend to conribute to the Chamber, they just wanted a title (Lord Lebedev being an example). They aren't adding any value, its just pure political corruption.
Too many MPs and ex-MPs get appointed as compared to leading people who might not generally stand for parliament but have expertise worth contributing. Something like 150 of them used to be MPs I think, and their impact will probably be disproportionate as they are probably amongst those who turn up more often (only about half attend regularly).
The Tories should have done some minor tweaks to curb the worst aspects of the Lords*, which would have obviated any obvious need (besides 'principle') for Labour to radically alter it. They've missed their shot, and so now the need to do something falls on the party who intend to do more rather than less.
* as mentioned ad naseum these could be very straightforward and have immediate effect, like preventing ex-MPs from appointment straight away, limiting the overall size, attendance requirements, doners not being appointed etc.
No, the real eye-opener was his petrol station adventure. He had No Clue how contactless payments work. So he does not actually pay for things himself which makes it almost impossible for him to understand just how difficult it is for so many people to have the cash to do so.
That said, a lot of jerry-building took place in the 18th and 19th centuries. All kinds of dreadful slums that were a nightmare to live in.
Sunak is not that sort of an opponent. Yes, he doesn't have a common touch, he's rich, he's a geek etc but he's not hateable. In that situation, people start to pay a lot more attention about whom they are being asked to choose rather than just voting for x because they are not y.
Give it as we start to get into 2024. Starmer is going to be coming under a huge barrage to explain his positions on a whole range of issues - Europe, tax, trans issues etc. The more issues he is questioned on, the greater the chances he slips up. And gets hammered for it.
My Saudi mate from my Arabic course had had a gap year dalliance with ISIS. He reckoned that 95% of the war tourists arriving in The State were a military net negative. He put himself in this cohort and departed for the fleshpots of Amman and Beirut with all possible haste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossness_Pumping_Station
It has got criticisms from lefty journalists that it perpetuates stereotypes and the cast is not diverse and representative and OH FUCK OFF SHUT UP SIT DOWN
Wokeness is the death of art
Ironically, if the Woke journalists could take off their Outrage Goggles, they’d notice that the taciturn black character Thomas is one of the most compelling, sympathetic performances on any show at the moment. And the writers absolutely touch on his race. The difference is the writers don’t shove the sermon down your throat.
Except for those blue ones. Yikes
The Tories have utterly utterly fucked this country. The pervading sense of a country where nothing works and everything is very expensive is everywhere, so even if Starmer struggles with "so what would YOU do?" questions, the answer isn't going to be "lets stick with the Tories".
The political wildcard remains Farage and REFUK. I think the temptation will be too much for him - there are plenty of voters hungry for a sink the migrants solution and they feel the Tories have failed them. This is a direct mirror of what you said people will "hammer" Starmer over. They will - but at the same time Sunak also gets hammered. And a significant chunk of the how Labour win math is Tory voters staying home or voting REFUK.
It's lack of the latter that is the problem, not that he comes across as so elitist he probably washes his hands after shaking hands with a poor person (I got that impression when reading about a lot of communist revolutionaries too).
Did you sample any of the Stary Gazey pie? I think that's just before Christmas.
And, I think the homeless kitchen "incident" was a lot of fuss about nothing.
As no one said, ever.
Of course, that can work in any direction- he might end up with almost everybody feeling betrayed by him.
However if Starmer wants a fully elected Senate and US style deadlock between the Upper House and Lower House if different parties are elected to control them that is up to him
They'd look the part on any rainy day in John Finney St. Are they in Malcolm's size?
He has an election to win first.
Bit like how all the Roman stuff that survives is over engineered and well built. Apartment building collapses were common in Ancient Rome….
The trouble is that one presumes Starmer wants to be re-elected after 4-5 years.
However France, Canada, Ireland, India etc get by with largely appointed upper houses and only really Australia, the US, Italy and Spain and Japan have upper houses directly elected by the voters rather than regional councillors or Parliaments of developed nations.
New Zealand, Israel, Denmark and Sweden don't even have an upper house at all just a lower house but they are much smaller than we are
Farage is an interesting one. He might see an opportunity but I suspect he knows that the next 'big issue' for his voting base is the poor WWC being left behind. I'm not sure how comfortable he is when he comes to playing that issue (I suspect a fair bit but not as much as Brexit).
For me, this has all the hallmarks of 2010 - Tories pre-election having big leads a fair bit out from the election but the result didn't give them a majority. And for much the same reasons .
Reading the comments on here today is like reading them in 2008 when it was clear Brown had slipped up post GFC, and the damage to Labour was terminal.
The centre-left posters started to withdraw or go quiet and the centre-right ones started to get very excited. Virtually everyone else put the boot in.
Now, the boot is on the other foot.
Quite the opposite in fact.
As @HYUFD will no doubt remind us, Governments rarely win four elections let alone five. The Conservatives have been the leading party in Government (no one remembers the Coalition or the deal with the DUP) and there has been a Conservative Prime Minister (well, five of them) since 2010.
The way the Conservatives have comported themselves in office is going once again to be the problem. It's hard to think it's been barely three years since Johnson won an 80-seat majority - that voting coalition was made up of 75% of those voting Leave and about 20% of those voting Remain (who considered Corbyn a bigger threat than leaving the EU).
That voting bloc has been shattered largely by events - yes, there are those who will always fear Labour in any form just as there were those who feared Blair in 1997. Those who prefer a Conservative Government ad infinitum will always head for the blue team no matter what.
Starmer has done very little right or wrong - he hasn't had to. The Conservatives have metaphorically shot themselves in both feet and then finished off with one between the eyes for good measure. It's hard to think had Starmer asked for his most optimal political year he could have asked for much more.
Rightly, the focus will increasingly be on what a Labour Government will do for Britain in 2025 and beyond. As with Blair, I suspect Starmer's primary concern will be to re-assure with just an ankle of something radical - in other words, to convince the electorate the Labour Party he leads into Government will be primarily interested in mainstream economic issues, not peripheral cultural concerns (that's the cul-de-sac the Conservatives can go down as they did with the Euro).
If he can convince the electorate the party he leads is a centrist or slightly centre-left social democratic party he will win and win big. The Conservatives, by contrast, look out of touch, out of ideas and out of time.
Starmer is my MP. First of all, he is very unresponsive (my wife has written to him on several occasions with no reply - yes he is LOTO but still).
But what really got me was his first election leaflet in 2015. He had three endorsements - one was from Frank Dobson and the second from Glenda Jackson. Fair enough, the retiring MP plus the MP for the constituency over
The third thought was from the Chair of the King's Cross Mosque. Why the appeal to religion? Why not Father Ted? To me, that was how he was willing to turn to faction groups to boost his position. That's not a great stance in a national al leader.
https://youtu.be/yeIX0VnUMKo
Which party or coalition best represents centrism and competence. +, on this occasion, which best answers the call for 'Time for a change'.
Probabilities: 80% Labour or Labour led
20% Tories or Tory led.
Tiny footnote: On TodayR4 today, largely given over to free school meals, Osborne and Blair had plenty to say, the government had no comment, and Labour would not commit to extending FSMs.
This is Labour being serious about winning. I think their policy is to promise almost nothing, but win on the Three Cs (as above) and then deliver a little more than promised.
I got to Ostend for the ferry back to Dover to be told the ferry would sail on time but the weather was worsening. I remember the night getting worse and worse - a lot of people being very sick and no one getting any sleep.
Just before 5am we were told we weren't docking at Dover but at Folkestone and we were let out through the car ferry deck as the ship was pitching in the harbour.
I was so relieved to be on dry ground and I don't know how but I got up the hill to the main station and got on a train to London with the commuters. Got back to my parents' house and just crashed. I heard about Penlee later the same day - there are plenty of brave people but the RNLI crews are right up there.
It was for Mousehole what the 1939 disaster was for St Ives.
Yes, I think that all Sunak has to aim for is damage limitation, not scaring the remaining horses etc.
I think there is more realism that was the case with Brown. The emotional investment in Brown was large, because he was seen as the best of New Labour - he was imagined to be Blair without the smarm, scandals and Iraq.
However criticism for reaching out to all potential voter factions suggests Starmer is more switched on than he is given credit for. And as to the assertion that Sunak is "nicer" than Starmer, neither have given much indication, one way or another, that they are anything but ambitious, self-serving, greasy-pole climbers. In both cases that comes with the territory, although on that score neither are a patch on the self-serving Johnson, and that didn't unduly concern PB Tories.
Joe Biden got the job because that is one of his core skills - coalition building.
This may seem old fashioned and rather tacky. But it brings people together and builds consensus. As opposed to the Only The Pure And Faithful zealotry.
My mid life crisis is demonstrated in two clear ways, marrying somebody nearly twenty years younger than me and secondly wearing loafers.
My most recent purchase.
They are much nicer to live in, in the age of constant central heating. Once the stone has reached a nice temp…. But heat will leak furiously, unless the roof has been insulated and you keep the shutters closed on the windows.
But Starmer wasn't hearing a coalition of groups, he was appealing to one. The others didn't get a look in nor were mentioned.
Fair enough, you may say, in the constituency, that block vote is very significant. But it gives an impression that only one group counts.
Building granite cottages in an era of living wage is exhorbitantly expensive, in an era of poverty wages less so.
There was a rather good series of explanations of this in the series “Boss” with Kelsey Grammer as Mayor of Chicago
Silent, however, on where the staff are to come from otherwise.
Clue: https://twitter.com/withorpe/status/1582379792006946816?s=20&t=_8uJOsi3xRRoprP3G4FjRQ
Very Labour.
I think Blair would be just as potent now, quite frankly. I hated him at the time but I think much of that was jealously - he's simply a cut above the rest.
1.05 Chepstow - Le Cameleon
2.10 Chepstow - Just a Dime
2.30 Kempton - Edwardstone
2.50 Chepstow - Quick Wave
a @Heathener landslide is on.
The problem with the weaponised stupidity and ignorance promoted by the Tories / Mail / GBeebies etc is that people now believe the political equivalent of "the sky is green" even though they can see it is blue. Farage just needs to tell the thick and angry that the Tories have failed them and harsher measures are needed - enough people will vote for it to utterly demolish the Tories.
40 years ago, the equivalent would be to play the Irish vote in N London constituencies.
That led to several MPs who were, let's say, sympathetic to the IRA view of the world. That may have been their original views but no doubt they were influenced by their constituencies.
Appealing to only one part of your constituents not all leads to problems.
Hence a certain ex-Mayor of London. He would would spend time and effort trying to blacken the names of PIRA victims, if their deaths caused the wrong kind of outrage.
As a special festive punishment, here are a pair of La Liga tips (for those unaware, my La Liga bets were patchy but not atrocious before I lost all my records...).
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/12/ligue-1-and-la-liga-thoughts-27.html
Backed Real Betis to win at home versus Athletic Bilbao at 2.86, and Osasuna at 4.5 to win away against Real Sociedad.
No Ligue 1 bets, though I did peruse the markets.
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C276375 For example….
How’s polls moving in next few months? We have had peak Sunak, I can confidently say that. In the last few months he has been weighed and he has been measured by the voters and has been found wanting. Inexperienced and out of touch.
And compare his horrible cabinet with the heavyweights in majors. Compare the last 12 years of nothing good to say about it government with the one that came back in 92 based on the voters at the time still liking much about how the Conservatives governed in the 80s.
And for that same reason ignore HY trying to mug you with the idea Brown stopped Cameron getting a majority. He didn’t. Brown was every bit as naff as Sunak, it was liking Labours time in power on NHS, Education and not entirely blaming them for the boom and bust that kept Labour at 260 seats, fearing tge NHS in Tory hands, but there is no historical comparison here with the all mixed up horror show of 12 years without a redeeming factor to say for it.
I personally have some doubts about both his nerve and his passion.
But he will never be as powerful as he will be at that time. The Tory Civil War that will rage through the 2020s will be at its hottest (the Sunak era will be seen historically as merely a brief respite for new and old Tories to re-group and re-arm), Corbynites will have been humiliated, Sturgeon's sunset will be on the horizon, and the Lib Dems will remain relatively weak even if they are back to having a reasonable clutch of MPs.
He's very, very likely to be re-elected in 2028, and it's never going to get better in terms of doing things he wants to do politically.
I’m driving around west Cornwall for work purposes, and what has struck me - to my total surprise - is the HIGH quality - at least visually - of many new developments (there are a lot, Cornwall is growing fast)
The developers are using elements of local stone - granite and slate. Nice elegant proportions, mixing classical and modern. The houses that are completely modern are sleek
There is very little of that horrible shoebox redbrick cul de saccy Barratt Home shite you see elsewhere in middle Britain
I wonder why. More money from incomers? The influence of the King (ex Duke of Cornwall - he has a nice Poundbury ish development on the edge of Truro)? A sensible council? All three?
Dunno. But it is encouraging. The rest of the country should look to Cornwall
It was you that brought public schools into it.
The election of a Labour government will simply see Tory prejudices replaced with Labour ones.
The electorate is far more volatile these days and I can't see further than 6 months ahead, yet alone 6 years.
Starmer could rapidly shed votes in all directions, to the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, DNK/WNVs and even some Reform and the Tories.
I am a Lib Dem, leaning Green, but for much of the population in England elections are purely two party affairs.