I must be having a lucky day - I called HMRC with a problem (that they caused) and within half an hour I had a fix agreed and both HMRC and Companies House have agreed to extend filing deadlines without penalty for long enough for the fix to be implemented.
I'd expected to have spent half the day on the phone based on the scare stories you hear.
Some years back HMRC had a complete overhaul of their customer service and generally they are way ahead of most companies nowadays. Whoever managed this should be a rich man or woman and sent in to other big enterprises to do the same.
I received a cheque in the post from HMRC yesterday - a tax refund. They'd cheekily dated the cheque for the end of November, but I'm pretty sure the postal system isn't that bad, as I'd checked online whether they'd done anything with my application just a couple of weeks ago and they hadn't looked at it.
We are all under-estimating exactly how shite Starmer’s government will be. They have no idea what to do. They are Blairites without the golden economic legacy. They are tax and spenders when we are already taxed to the hilt, mired in debt, and spending way too much
They will run out of cash on day 1
From there we can expect performative Wokery and abject attempts to rejoin the EU without doing so. Labour will disappoint a huge number of people - once the relief at the End of the Tories has abated
Looks as though @DavidL and I are about to lose our reputation as anti-tipsters.
I'd just like to remind you of an exchange we had about 48 hours ago:
You: This test has *draw* written all over it. (That leaves @Northern_Al with a serious dilemma. Now the draw is ruled out, which side does he back to win?) Edit - bloody hell, draw just ain't happening, @DavidL has predicted it too.
Me :Thanks for the tip. New Zealand to win. Williamson will score a daddy hundred, Pakistan won't make 250 in their second innings. Just enough time for NZ to knock off the 100 needed.
The Tories are headed for extermination. This should seriously worry them as an actual prospect, now
The same pollster had the Tories on just 14% under Truss.
But we are now several weeks nearer the actual election
With every day that passes, without some kind of revival, the Tories inch nearer the cliff-edge of electoral disaster
I do not believe they can revive now (outside some huge black swan). The choice is between a really bad result (approaching 1997) or something apocalyptic, as happened to the Canadian Tories in 1993
It's hard to disagree with that.
Outside of a black swan, the only other thing I can see is Sunak being dumped for the return of Boris. I actually think that would like work against the Tories though.
Saw a black swan yesterday. Literally. Thing is, I was explaining to my son it was just a cygnet and due to turn white on maturity but then read the signage, this being at Martin Mere, and it was an actual black swan.
First time I saw it I thought I needed to cut down on the booze a bit.
An early memory is being ushered over to the window by the junior school art teacher to see an albino blackbird. And because in those days primary schools were all about the 3Rs, we learned a new word, albino.
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Which would make Sunak Ted Heath.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
The Tories are headed for extermination. This should seriously worry them as an actual prospect, now
The same pollster had the Tories on just 14% under Truss.
But we are now several weeks nearer the actual election
With every day that passes, without some kind of revival, the Tories inch nearer the cliff-edge of electoral disaster
I do not believe they can revive now (outside some huge black swan). The choice is between a really bad result (approaching 1997) or something apocalyptic, as happened to the Canadian Tories in 1993
It's hard to disagree with that.
Outside of a black swan, the only other thing I can see is Sunak being dumped for the return of Boris. I actually think that would like work against the Tories though.
Saw a black swan yesterday. Literally. Thing is, I was explaining to my son it was just a cygnet and due to turn white on maturity but then read the signage, this being at Martin Mere, and it was an actual black swan.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.
Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.
But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.
It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.
It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.
An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.
Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.
There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.
It's a well argued case and, who knows, you might be right.
Either way, it's going to be a fascinating couple of years politically.
As I've said before, keep an eye on Big_G. If he stays with Starmer, maybe Heathener is right. If he shows signs of reverting to type, or staying at home, maybe pigeon will be right.
Lol. Big G will vote blue although he may not admit it. Unlike us true believers. 🤣
Looks as though @DavidL and I are about to lose our reputation as anti-tipsters.
I'd just like to remind you of an exchange we had about 48 hours ago:
You: This test has *draw* written all over it. (That leaves @Northern_Al with a serious dilemma. Now the draw is ruled out, which side does he back to win?) Edit - bloody hell, draw just ain't happening, @DavidL has predicted it too.
Me :Thanks for the tip. New Zealand to win. Williamson will score a daddy hundred, Pakistan won't make 250 in their second innings. Just enough time for NZ to knock off the 100 needed.
What do you think I was trying for?
Three wickets fall, and that was a stupid dismissal from Imam.
With these sort of poll figures, what odds on a pre-election comeback for BJ? Everyone’s forgotten about covid and the parties by now I’d have thought. And really, he broke the rules because he knew at an instinctive level that it was all bullshit to begin with.
I’m terrified of a Starmer or Starmer/Sturgeon govt because I suspect the smallest pulse of graphs out of Sage would be enough to rush the nation back under house arrest at the expense of our children. I also think if Starmer was PM this Parliament we’d all still be wearing masks in public spaces. Hard to forget his sanctimonious face peeping out from an oversized mask in Parliament long after everyone inside had been vaccinated.
Boris meanwhile has I think learnt his lesson and next time would tell the unhireables like Valance and that communist woman where to go. This isn’t as fringe a risk as you’d think. Witness the bed wetting about China’s exit wave. And note that a potential pandemic causing novel virus seems to emerge around every five years.
Note the panicked reaction to the prospect of Chinese tourists carrying a plague we are supposed to have tamed.
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
(used as an exemplar of choosing conspiracy as explanation-of-preference, rather than specifically about Tory support or otherwise)
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Which would make Sunak Ted Heath.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
Not remotely comparable. Heath was (strange to think now) a popular new broom who led the party to a slightly unexpected election win, and proceeded to fuck up. Though he’ll always have Europe.
Sunak is just the caretaker of a fag end, failed administration.
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
The big picture mistake was thinking it was all economics, and sending waves of academics and young financiers (especially Americans) in to help them privatise everything. Little attention was paid to the fundamental social and institutional elements that enable a free economy to function - electoral democracy, independent judiciary, free media, etc. - and hence what was supposed to be a free economy quickly mutated into a gangster/criminal one.
Gessen's 'Future is History' is a great source - or there is that recent somewhat peculiarly made BBC documentary series, both looking at the transformation in Russia through ordinary lives.
Everything flows from the rule of law.
It's why we should be particularly concerned by the underfunding of the criminal justice system in the UK, and the way in which clashes with the judiciary are relished by some politicians as creating a political benefit.
The battles to ensure that the monarch was not above the law are an exceptionally, and much neglected, part of English history.
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Which would make Sunak Ted Heath.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
Not remotely comparable. Heath was (strange to think now) a popular new broom who led the party to a slightly unexpected election win, and proceeded to fuck up. Though he’ll always have Europe.
Sunak is just the caretaker of a fag end, failed administration.
Heath doesn't even have Europe as a legacy now we have left the EU, which this Conservative government delivered
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Which would make Sunak Ted Heath.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
Not remotely comparable. Heath was (strange to think now) a popular new broom who led the party to a slightly unexpected election win, and proceeded to fuck up. Though he’ll always have Europe.
Sunak is just the caretaker of a fag end, failed administration.
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Which would make Sunak Ted Heath.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
Not remotely comparable. Heath was (strange to think now) a popular new broom who led the party to a slightly unexpected election win, and proceeded to fuck up. Though he’ll always have Europe.
Sunak is just the caretaker of a fag end, failed administration.
You could make a case that Heath's administration had more impact on the lives of people in Britain than any other government since the war apart from those of Attlee and Thatcher. Between Europe, local government reform and Northern Ireland he made very major changes to the fabric of this country in ways we're still grappling with.
Whether they were good changes is something of a different question.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.
Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.
But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.
It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.
It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.
An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.
Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.
There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.
It's a well argued case and, who knows, you might be right.
Either way, it's going to be a fascinating couple of years politically.
As I've said before, keep an eye on Big_G. If he stays with Starmer, maybe Heathener is right. If he shows signs of reverting to type, or staying at home, maybe pigeon will be right.
Lol. Big G will vote blue although he may not admit it. Unlike us true believers. 🤣
BigG already said he will vote Tory again under Sunak.
Note he voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001 but has voted Conservative since
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Which would make Sunak Ted Heath.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
Not remotely comparable. Heath was (strange to think now) a popular new broom who led the party to a slightly unexpected election win, and proceeded to fuck up. Though he’ll always have Europe.
Sunak is just the caretaker of a fag end, failed administration.
That makes Boris an unlikely Heath
That would at least be a better comparison than HYUFD’s nonsense.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.
Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.
But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.
It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.
It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.
An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.
Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.
There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.
It's a well argued case and, who knows, you might be right.
Either way, it's going to be a fascinating couple of years politically.
As I've said before, keep an eye on Big_G. If he stays with Starmer, maybe Heathener is right. If he shows signs of reverting to type, or staying at home, maybe pigeon will be right.
Lol. Big G will vote blue although he may not admit it. Unlike us true believers. 🤣
BigG already said he will vote Tory again under Sunak.
Note he voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001 but has voted Conservative since
True but Johnson will probably be back leading the Tories for GE24, so they may not be getting Big_G's vote.
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Which would make Sunak Ted Heath.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
Not remotely comparable. Heath was (strange to think now) a popular new broom who led the party to a slightly unexpected election win, and proceeded to fuck up. Though he’ll always have Europe.
Sunak is just the caretaker of a fag end, failed administration.
That makes Boris an unlikely Heath
Boris won a landslide in 2019 and took us out of the EU Heath took us into.
We also didn't have the Heath era like strikes and high inflation under most of the Boris government, they have come under the Truss and Sunak government now in particular
I've been 'aware' pf him and his antics for a few years, and he's an absolute *******. Sadly, it seems some people look up to him. Although he had limited 'fame' beforehand, I wish he'd never gone on Big Brother, which is when his profile seemed to take off.
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Which would make Sunak Ted Heath.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
Not remotely comparable. Heath was (strange to think now) a popular new broom who led the party to a slightly unexpected election win, and proceeded to fuck up. Though he’ll always have Europe.
Sunak is just the caretaker of a fag end, failed administration.
That makes Boris an unlikely Heath
That would at least be a better comparison than HYUFD’s nonsense.
At least in the 1970s Brits could console themselves with their endless, brilliant new music
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Fair point, although we all know the only bloc they will going in the foreseeable is one led by Labour.
But put that aside and the left are leading the right by 54% to 27%, so neatly 2:1.
Three years ago they won an 80 seat majority; how did the Tories manage to f*ck it up so really, so fast?
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
Well although, it sometimes rhymes, History does always repeat itself. Nevertheless, I think it is not just the Conservative Party that voters wish to purge, they are pretty horrified at the forced choices that they are repeatedly being asked to make.
In which case you could see some Mosleyite "New Party" as the more likely historical parallel. I am sure Mr, Farage would like to oblige. It would be a disaster of course, but there is an awful lot of ruin in a nation.
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
It worked because Orange Book LDs have more in common economically with the Tories than Labour.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
This was my definite impression after visiting Hartlepool in October. They just like Johnson. Fuck knows why but they do and feel he was done dirty by Sunak.
Travel to the Red Wall narrows the mind. You should try it.
Yes, door knocking there is still a 'poor old Boris, never had chance did he?' tendency. Baffling
I've been 'aware' pf him and his antics for a few years, and he's an absolute *******. Sadly, it seems some people look up to him. Although he had limited 'fame' beforehand, I wish he'd never gone on Big Brother, which is when his profile seemed to take off.
I'm no particular admirer of Greta Thunberg but she's bang on when she says he's giving off a lot of 'small dick energy.'
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
And tbf the LibDems have always pitched as (slightly) left of centre. Clue is in the title.
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
History never repeats exactly. We aren't getting either the music or the rising standards of living that the Seventies produced.
I don't expect much from a Starmer administration, but the problems that the UK has are not amenable to quick solutions, particularly when the hole in the bucket cannot be repaired, or even be mentioned by name.
Badenoch is no Thatcher, and Thatcherism is no solution to our current malaise. She is more likely the new William Hague, good at oratory but ineffective at reviving the party.
This was my definite impression after visiting Hartlepool in October. They just like Johnson. Fuck knows why but they do and feel he was done dirty by Sunak.
Travel to the Red Wall narrows the mind. You should try it.
Yes, door knocking there is still a 'poor old Boris, never had chance did he?' tendency. Baffling
For many of the white working class Boris was the only Tory leader they had ever voted for and probably the only one they now ever will have voted for
This was my definite impression after visiting Hartlepool in October. They just like Johnson. Fuck knows why but they do and feel he was done dirty by Sunak.
Travel to the Red Wall narrows the mind. You should try it.
Yes, door knocking there is still a 'poor old Boris, never had chance did he?' tendency. Baffling
For many of the white working class Boris was the only Tory leader they had ever voted for and probably the only one they now ever will have voted for
Good morning everyone. Are Con Home and PB now the only places with Conservative majorities?
On ConHome they keep moaning about all the 'liberals' who post there, and wondering where all the real Tories have gone. Like Leon they quickly conclude there must be some sort of conspiracy and don't seem to realise that it simply reflects changing views in the country.
Tbf to Leon, I think he acknowledges there's a sea change in opinion caused by this government's rank ineptitude, rather than blaming any conspiracy.
Indeed. The Tories are toxic and the voters want to puke them up. 2024 will be a purge
We are repeating the 1970s but with greater political volatility. We have the same national malaise. Same poisoned arguments about Europe. A Cold War with Russia. Strikes are back. All parties feel clueless
On that basis Starmer’s Labour will be the Wilson-Callaghan government of 74-79 and we can expect national revival under Thatcher-Badenoch by the end of the decade
History never repeats exactly. We aren't getting either the music or the rising standards of living that the Seventies produced.
I don't expect much from a Starmer administration, but the problems that the UK has are not amenable to quick solutions, particularly when the hole in the bucket cannot be repaired, or even be mentioned by name.
Badenoch is no Thatcher, and Thatcherism is no solution to our current malaise. She is more likely the new William Hague, good at oratory but ineffective at reviving the party.
What we need is a political figure who has the courage to do things like re-nationalise key infrastructure like the water companies, while slashing taxes for domestic gas producers and working age people, paid for by increasing taxation on non earned income. The love child of Corbyn and Thatcher.
I must be having a lucky day - I called HMRC with a problem (that they caused) and within half an hour I had a fix agreed and both HMRC and Companies House have agreed to extend filing deadlines without penalty for long enough for the fix to be implemented.
I'd expected to have spent half the day on the phone based on the scare stories you hear.
Some years back HMRC had a complete overhaul of their customer service and generally they are way ahead of most companies nowadays. Whoever managed this should be a rich man or woman and sent in to other big enterprises to do the same.
I received a cheque in the post from HMRC yesterday - a tax refund. They'd cheekily dated the cheque for the end of November, but I'm pretty sure the postal system isn't that bad, as I'd checked online whether they'd done anything with my application just a couple of weeks ago and they hadn't looked at it.
This seems to be pretty standard with HMRC.
I had a long and difficult exchange of correspondence with them a few years back and they were quite obviously pre-dating their letters. The post is good around here yet for some reason their letters were taking weeks to reach me, if you believed the date on them. It was very annoying because they usually time limted my replies by telling me I only had so many days to respond. As a result I was more or less obliged to reply instantly, or else.
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
I think it was a bit optimistic to expect that the entirety of the ex-USSR and Warsaw Pact countries would make a seamless transition to democracy. Taking a step back and looking at the thirty years as a whole, I don't think the outcome is all that bad. Some countries have made the transition well (Czechia, the Baltics), some have made some good progress, but now a couple of steps back (Poland, Hungary), others were slower to move in the right direction but have come a long way from where they started (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine), and now some are beginning to realise they made a mistake in sticking close to Russia (Armenia, Kazakhstan).
There's a good chance that if Ukraine wins the war its victory will help to ensure that the next thirty years sees more progress towards the rule of law, open market economies and free democracies across the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. But most likely that Russia will still be governed by a nationalist authoritarian.
I've been 'aware' pf him and his antics for a few years, and he's an absolute *******. Sadly, it seems some people look up to him. Although he had limited 'fame' beforehand, I wish he'd never gone on Big Brother, which is when his profile seemed to take off.
I'm no particular admirer of Greta Thunberg but she's bang on when she says he's giving off a lot of 'small dick energy.'
"this is what happens when you don’t recycle your pizza boxes"
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
It worked because Orange Book LDs have more in common economically with the Tories than Labour.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
So.. Liberals, you mean.
Economically and socially liberal is not exactly a rump point of view.
I've been 'aware' pf him and his antics for a few years, and he's an absolute *******. Sadly, it seems some people look up to him. Although he had limited 'fame' beforehand, I wish he'd never gone on Big Brother, which is when his profile seemed to take off.
I'm no particular admirer of Greta Thunberg but she's bang on when she says he's giving off a lot of 'small dick energy.'
If you want boring and competent you have Keir Starmer.
Why would you vote for Sunak who has overseen failure for 12 years? His act doesn't work in Government.
I expected more from Sunak. His lack of experience and support is pretty debilitating for the Tories. It’s as if they have the administrators in.
I don't think it matters much what people think of Sunak (or Starmer for that matter). At the moment they just see the Tory Party like chewing gum in their hair. They just want to get rid of it at all costs.
They're lucky this isn't a more volatile country or we'd have been out on the streets.
More like dog poo squelched into the soles of their feet ... but yes
'Dog poo can be washed out'. This goes deeper. Some like me believe taking us out of the EU was such a wanton and heinous act that that has so negatively affected our lives that it can never be flushed away or forgiven.
Others believe the Truss Kwarteng interregnum stole by ambition and incompetence so many £billions that our public services will never recover and is the reason they no longer function
Then there's all of us who saw our government taken over by a hedonistic bunch of self pleasuring pirates whose behaviour led to a national feeling of nausea
I've been 'aware' pf him and his antics for a few years, and he's an absolute *******. Sadly, it seems some people look up to him. Although he had limited 'fame' beforehand, I wish he'd never gone on Big Brother, which is when his profile seemed to take off.
I'm no particular admirer of Greta Thunberg but she's bang on when she says he's giving off a lot of 'small dick energy.'
"this is what happens when you don’t recycle your pizza boxes"
Genuinely funny in the Sun. Parents at a primary school complaining that putting a cycle track in a "narrow" lane (actually 2m wider than minimum since it's the old Durham Sunderland road) will put their children's lives at risk.
Illustrated by assorted photos of the road entirely clogged up with parents' cars.
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
It worked because Orange Book LDs have more in common economically with the Tories than Labour.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
So.. Liberals, you mean.
Economically and socially liberal is not exactly a rump point of view.
It is a view held by about 8% of the population (albeit over represented on PB), hence the LDs current poll rating and their voteshare in 2015 and 2017 (slightly boosted to 11% in 2019 because of Corbyn but that extra 3% now returned to Labour under Starmer)
I've been 'aware' pf him and his antics for a few years, and he's an absolute *******. Sadly, it seems some people look up to him. Although he had limited 'fame' beforehand, I wish he'd never gone on Big Brother, which is when his profile seemed to take off.
I'm no particular admirer of Greta Thunberg but she's bang on when she says he's giving off a lot of 'small dick energy.'
"this is what happens when you don’t recycle your pizza boxes"
With these sort of poll figures, what odds on a pre-election comeback for BJ? Everyone’s forgotten about covid and the parties by now I’d have thought. And really, he broke the rules because he knew at an instinctive level that it was all bullshit to begin with.
I’m terrified of a Starmer or Starmer/Sturgeon govt because I suspect the smallest pulse of graphs out of Sage would be enough to rush the nation back under house arrest at the expense of our children. I also think if Starmer was PM this Parliament we’d all still be wearing masks in public spaces. Hard to forget his sanctimonious face peeping out from an oversized mask in Parliament long after everyone inside had been vaccinated.
Boris meanwhile has I think learnt his lesson and next time would tell the unhireables like Valance and that communist woman where to go. This isn’t as fringe a risk as you’d think. Witness the bed wetting about China’s exit wave. And note that a potential pandemic causing novel virus seems to emerge around every five years.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I've been 'aware' pf him and his antics for a few years, and he's an absolute *******. Sadly, it seems some people look up to him. Although he had limited 'fame' beforehand, I wish he'd never gone on Big Brother, which is when his profile seemed to take off.
I'm no particular admirer of Greta Thunberg but she's bang on when she says he's giving off a lot of 'small dick energy.'
"this is what happens when you don’t recycle your pizza boxes"
We are all under-estimating exactly how shite Starmer’s government will be. They have no idea what to do. They are Blairites without the golden economic legacy. They are tax and spenders when we are already taxed to the hilt, mired in debt, and spending way too much
They will run out of cash on day 1
From there we can expect performative Wokery and abject attempts to rejoin the EU without doing so. Labour will disappoint a huge number of people - once the relief at the End of the Tories has abated
What then? Who takes over?
It will be a bit like the election of Hollande, and its aftermath, IMHO.
With these sort of poll figures, what odds on a pre-election comeback for BJ? Everyone’s forgotten about covid and the parties by now I’d have thought. And really, he broke the rules because he knew at an instinctive level that it was all bullshit to begin with.
I’m terrified of a Starmer or Starmer/Sturgeon govt because I suspect the smallest pulse of graphs out of Sage would be enough to rush the nation back under house arrest at the expense of our children. I also think if Starmer was PM this Parliament we’d all still be wearing masks in public spaces. Hard to forget his sanctimonious face peeping out from an oversized mask in Parliament long after everyone inside had been vaccinated.
Boris meanwhile has I think learnt his lesson and next time would tell the unhireables like Valance and that communist woman where to go. This isn’t as fringe a risk as you’d think. Witness the bed wetting about China’s exit wave. And note that a potential pandemic causing novel virus seems to emerge around every five years.
I'm on Boris as next PM.
Owen Jones (admittedly not a sympathetic observer) thinks the same:
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
I think it was a bit optimistic to expect that the entirety of the ex-USSR and Warsaw Pact countries would make a seamless transition to democracy. Taking a step back and looking at the thirty years as a whole, I don't think the outcome is all that bad. Some countries have made the transition well (Czechia, the Baltics), some have made some good progress, but now a couple of steps back (Poland, Hungary), others were slower to move in the right direction but have come a long way from where they started (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine), and now some are beginning to realise they made a mistake in sticking close to Russia (Armenia, Kazakhstan).
There's a good chance that if Ukraine wins the war its victory will help to ensure that the next thirty years sees more progress towards the rule of law, open market economies and free democracies across the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. But most likely that Russia will still be governed by a nationalist authoritarian.
How can Ukraine win the war if it is denied, or denies itself, military operations in Russian territory? The prospect is perpetual stalemate with no end to Russian lobbing missiles or artillery barrages against Ukrainian targets.
I've been 'aware' pf him and his antics for a few years, and he's an absolute *******. Sadly, it seems some people look up to him. Although he had limited 'fame' beforehand, I wish he'd never gone on Big Brother, which is when his profile seemed to take off.
I'm no particular admirer of Greta Thunberg but she's bang on when she says he's giving off a lot of 'small dick energy.'
"this is what happens when you don’t recycle your pizza boxes"
Looks like she has just taken 33 cars off the road, including a V12 Bugatti.
Interesting. When I visited my mum for Christmas she mentioned that the council there tell people not to recycle pizza boxes because they are "contaminated".
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
It is true that many appalling figures from the Nazi era were able to live normal lives later, but only after there had been a reckoning first. Several of the most egregious Nazi criminals were tried, and several executed or given severe prison sentences- at Nuremburg not least. Arguably the execution of Ceausescu was a similar reckoning. and while it is true that many Khmer Rouges did join the transitional authority, most of the most critical KR leaders, such as Pol Pot, were indeed arrested.
Even a partial reckoning is a good thing, and Russia has not even had that.
With these sort of poll figures, what odds on a pre-election comeback for BJ? Everyone’s forgotten about covid and the parties by now I’d have thought. And really, he broke the rules because he knew at an instinctive level that it was all bullshit to begin with.
I’m terrified of a Starmer or Starmer/Sturgeon govt because I suspect the smallest pulse of graphs out of Sage would be enough to rush the nation back under house arrest at the expense of our children. I also think if Starmer was PM this Parliament we’d all still be wearing masks in public spaces. Hard to forget his sanctimonious face peeping out from an oversized mask in Parliament long after everyone inside had been vaccinated.
Boris meanwhile has I think learnt his lesson and next time would tell the unhireables like Valance and that communist woman where to go. This isn’t as fringe a risk as you’d think. Witness the bed wetting about China’s exit wave. And note that a potential pandemic causing novel virus seems to emerge around every five years.
I'm on Boris as next PM.
Owen Jones (admittedly not a sympathetic observer) thinks the same:
I thought Corporal Jones was persona non grata at the Guardian, and vice-versa? I'm sure it can't be so long since he and his friends were calling them Tories.
Or am I just out of phase on the intra-left wars ?
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
It worked because Orange Book LDs have more in common economically with the Tories than Labour.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
So.. Liberals, you mean.
Economically and socially liberal is not exactly a rump point of view.
It is a view held by about 8% of the population (albeit over represented on PB), hence the LDs current poll rating and their voteshare in 2015 and 2017 (slightly boosted to 11% in 2019 because of Corbyn but that extra 3% now returned to Labour under Starmer)
And with a bloc of 50-75 MPs would be taken a lot more seriously than under our crooked voting system.
I suspect the Conservative approach to the premiership, should they go back to Boris Johnson, might be reminiscent of Byzantine attitudes to multiple divorces/wives.
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
It worked because Orange Book LDs have more in common economically with the Tories than Labour.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
So.. Liberals, you mean.
Economically and socially liberal is not exactly a rump point of view.
It is a view held by about 8% of the population (albeit over represented on PB), hence the LDs current poll rating and their voteshare in 2015 and 2017 (slightly boosted to 11% in 2019 because of Corbyn but that extra 3% now returned to Labour under Starmer)
Good morning everyone. Managing to contribute again, although circumstances are quite difficult. As a centre-left voter who has always been an enthusiast for European unity, I would find it quite hard to vote Labour, given Keir Starmer’s apparent policies. I think my alternatives are LibDem or Green! And the last time I voted Green, in a council election, my candidate won, defeating a long, established Conservative!
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
I think it was a bit optimistic to expect that the entirety of the ex-USSR and Warsaw Pact countries would make a seamless transition to democracy. Taking a step back and looking at the thirty years as a whole, I don't think the outcome is all that bad. Some countries have made the transition well (Czechia, the Baltics), some have made some good progress, but now a couple of steps back (Poland, Hungary), others were slower to move in the right direction but have come a long way from where they started (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine), and now some are beginning to realise they made a mistake in sticking close to Russia (Armenia, Kazakhstan).
There's a good chance that if Ukraine wins the war its victory will help to ensure that the next thirty years sees more progress towards the rule of law, open market economies and free democracies across the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. But most likely that Russia will still be governed by a nationalist authoritarian.
Things could have turned out far less well than they did in Eastern Europe. People were far less vengeful than I expected.
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
It is true that many appalling figures from the Nazi era were able to live normal lives later, but only after there had been a reckoning first. Several of the most egregious Nazi criminals were tried, and several executed or given severe prison sentences- at Nuremburg not least. Arguably the execution of Ceausescu was a similar reckoning. and while it is true that many Khmer Rouges did join the transitional authority, most of the most critical KR leaders, such as Pol Pot, were indeed arrested.
Even a partial reckoning is a good thing, and Russia has not even had that.
If Ukraine retake Melitopol and cut off the Russians in Crimea, it is hard to see how anyone in Putin's regime survives.
That might be a reckoning, of a sort.
The risk is that a full-blown Army dictatorship then takes power.
We are all under-estimating exactly how shite Starmer’s government will be. They have no idea what to do. They are Blairites without the golden economic legacy. They are tax and spenders when we are already taxed to the hilt, mired in debt, and spending way too much
They will run out of cash on day 1
From there we can expect performative Wokery and abject attempts to rejoin the EU without doing so. Labour will disappoint a huge number of people - once the relief at the End of the Tories has abated
What then? Who takes over?
It will be a bit like the election of Hollande, and its aftermath, IMHO.
That's probably a good analogy. Perhaps we will be looking at a 'plague on all their houses' insurgency from the centre-right.
With these sort of poll figures, what odds on a pre-election comeback for BJ? Everyone’s forgotten about covid and the parties by now I’d have thought. And really, he broke the rules because he knew at an instinctive level that it was all bullshit to begin with.
I’m terrified of a Starmer or Starmer/Sturgeon govt because I suspect the smallest pulse of graphs out of Sage would be enough to rush the nation back under house arrest at the expense of our children. I also think if Starmer was PM this Parliament we’d all still be wearing masks in public spaces. Hard to forget his sanctimonious face peeping out from an oversized mask in Parliament long after everyone inside had been vaccinated.
Boris meanwhile has I think learnt his lesson and next time would tell the unhireables like Valance and that communist woman where to go. This isn’t as fringe a risk as you’d think. Witness the bed wetting about China’s exit wave. And note that a potential pandemic causing novel virus seems to emerge around every five years.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
With these sort of poll figures, what odds on a pre-election comeback for BJ? Everyone’s forgotten about covid and the parties by now I’d have thought. And really, he broke the rules because he knew at an instinctive level that it was all bullshit to begin with.
I’m terrified of a Starmer or Starmer/Sturgeon govt because I suspect the smallest pulse of graphs out of Sage would be enough to rush the nation back under house arrest at the expense of our children. I also think if Starmer was PM this Parliament we’d all still be wearing masks in public spaces. Hard to forget his sanctimonious face peeping out from an oversized mask in Parliament long after everyone inside had been vaccinated.
Boris meanwhile has I think learnt his lesson and next time would tell the unhireables like Valance and that communist woman where to go. This isn’t as fringe a risk as you’d think. Witness the bed wetting about China’s exit wave. And note that a potential pandemic causing novel virus seems to emerge around every five years.
I'm on Boris as next PM.
A better bet would be Uxbridge as the next by-election.
The odds of Bozo returning as PM should be less than Truss returning.
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
It worked because Orange Book LDs have more in common economically with the Tories than Labour.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
So.. Liberals, you mean.
Economically and socially liberal is not exactly a rump point of view.
It is a view held by about 8% of the population (albeit over represented on PB), hence the LDs current poll rating and their voteshare in 2015 and 2017 (slightly boosted to 11% in 2019 because of Corbyn but that extra 3% now returned to Labour under Starmer)
And with a bloc of 50-75 MPs would be taken a lot more seriously than under our crooked voting system.
Given that when they had the chance to offer a new voting system the Lib Dems offered us AV - which is worse than FPTP in pretty much every aspect - it's a bit much of Lib Dem supporters to complain about the voting system.
Meanwhile, in "this time, maybe it really is different" news, under 40s simply aren't turning more right-wing as they age. That's true on both sides of the Atlantic.
In summary: • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to: • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
It worked because Orange Book LDs have more in common economically with the Tories than Labour.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
The tendency of both Labour and LibDems to say nothing very substantial at the moment (for good reasons with nearly two years to go) has made masses of non-Conservatives agnostic about which to support, and they'll go for either based on signs of local leadership (results last time, volume of leaflets, prominence of local candidates etc.). The dominance of Labour over LDs in the polls is mostly a product of the media reporting Labour more (though I do think the LDs are remarkably quiet, even for those of us who follow these things).
That could change, either because one party says something controversial or because Labour wins an overall majority and the LDs suddenly start opposing it.
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
I think it was a bit optimistic to expect that the entirety of the ex-USSR and Warsaw Pact countries would make a seamless transition to democracy. Taking a step back and looking at the thirty years as a whole, I don't think the outcome is all that bad. Some countries have made the transition well (Czechia, the Baltics), some have made some good progress, but now a couple of steps back (Poland, Hungary), others were slower to move in the right direction but have come a long way from where they started (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine), and now some are beginning to realise they made a mistake in sticking close to Russia (Armenia, Kazakhstan).
There's a good chance that if Ukraine wins the war its victory will help to ensure that the next thirty years sees more progress towards the rule of law, open market economies and free democracies across the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. But most likely that Russia will still be governed by a nationalist authoritarian.
Things could have turned out far less well than they did in Eastern Europe. People were far less vengeful than I expected.
Maybe the ‘hatred’ many expected, just wasn’t there; look at the regret in some quarters, for the passing of the DDR regime, which surprised many people!
I see Goodwin is involved somehow which immediately makes it dodgy.
If you look at Lab+LD+Green and Tory+ Reform the PP numbers are pretty much in line with those from other pollsters. The exceptions are Opinium and Techne which reallocate DKs based on previous voting record and so tend to get a higher Tory and lower Labour number. For me, the combined bloc results are always the most interesting to look at - but that’s because I think tactical voting will play a big part at the next election.
Indeed. Lab+LD+Green=62%; Tory+Reform=27% Progressive are trouncing the right by more than 2 to 1.
However given the LDs were in government with the Tories ten years ago they can't really be included in either block
Of course they can. It only worked because Cameron wanted the Tories to at least appear more progressive.
It worked because Orange Book LDs have more in common economically with the Tories than Labour.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
So.. Liberals, you mean.
Economically and socially liberal is not exactly a rump point of view.
It is a view held by about 8% of the population (albeit over represented on PB), hence the LDs current poll rating and their voteshare in 2015 and 2017 (slightly boosted to 11% in 2019 because of Corbyn but that extra 3% now returned to Labour under Starmer)
And with a bloc of 50-75 MPs would be taken a lot more seriously than under our crooked voting system.
Given that when they had the chance to offer a new voting system the Lib Dems offered us AV - which is worse than FPTP in pretty much every aspect - it's a bit much of Lib Dem supporters to complain about the voting system.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
It's a big ask.
It's more likely the Labour government uses the money for higher public sector wage settlements and redistribution and simply taxes us into stagnation.
Trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles.
Meanwhile, in "this time, maybe it really is different" news, under 40s simply aren't turning more right-wing as they age. That's true on both sides of the Atlantic.
In summary: • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to: • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever
(Increasing levels of home ownership before people's parents die would help, but it's not a complete answer)
I've been flagging this for some time, at least in relation to house ownership. That the right is putting itself on the wrong side of demographically-driven atitudinal change amplifies the effect.
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
I think it was a bit optimistic to expect that the entirety of the ex-USSR and Warsaw Pact countries would make a seamless transition to democracy. Taking a step back and looking at the thirty years as a whole, I don't think the outcome is all that bad. Some countries have made the transition well (Czechia, the Baltics), some have made some good progress, but now a couple of steps back (Poland, Hungary), others were slower to move in the right direction but have come a long way from where they started (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine), and now some are beginning to realise they made a mistake in sticking close to Russia (Armenia, Kazakhstan).
There's a good chance that if Ukraine wins the war its victory will help to ensure that the next thirty years sees more progress towards the rule of law, open market economies and free democracies across the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. But most likely that Russia will still be governed by a nationalist authoritarian.
How can Ukraine win the war if it is denied, or denies itself, military operations in Russian territory? The prospect is perpetual stalemate with no end to Russian lobbing missiles or artillery barrages against Ukrainian targets.
Ukraine has hit airbases, munition dumps, artillery batteries and other targets in Russian territory. They've promised not to use NATO-supplied weapons to do so, but they're busy expanding their indigenous long-range capability with new drones.
With these sort of poll figures, what odds on a pre-election comeback for BJ? Everyone’s forgotten about covid and the parties by now I’d have thought. And really, he broke the rules because he knew at an instinctive level that it was all bullshit to begin with.
I’m terrified of a Starmer or Starmer/Sturgeon govt because I suspect the smallest pulse of graphs out of Sage would be enough to rush the nation back under house arrest at the expense of our children. I also think if Starmer was PM this Parliament we’d all still be wearing masks in public spaces. Hard to forget his sanctimonious face peeping out from an oversized mask in Parliament long after everyone inside had been vaccinated.
Boris meanwhile has I think learnt his lesson and next time would tell the unhireables like Valance and that communist woman where to go. This isn’t as fringe a risk as you’d think. Witness the bed wetting about China’s exit wave. And note that a potential pandemic causing novel virus seems to emerge around every five years.
I'm on Boris as next PM.
Didn't you lose money like that once before?
What you have to remember, Ian, is like all effective gamblers I am constantly changing and revising my positions as new information comes in.
There's this belief that successful gamblers (and I'm not saying I am, btw) are always Mystic Meg sages that spot things years before everyone else and, when they do, what they say should be listened to with baited breath for next time.
That's not how it works. I look for value. And that usually means outside where everyone else is looking.
Right now, Boris is 10/1 as next PM; I think that's value, so I bet.
I must be having a lucky day - I called HMRC with a problem (that they caused) and within half an hour I had a fix agreed and both HMRC and Companies House have agreed to extend filing deadlines without penalty for long enough for the fix to be implemented.
I'd expected to have spent half the day on the phone based on the scare stories you hear.
Some years back HMRC had a complete overhaul of their customer service and generally they are way ahead of most companies nowadays. Whoever managed this should be a rich man or woman and sent in to other big enterprises to do the same.
I received a cheque in the post from HMRC yesterday - a tax refund. They'd cheekily dated the cheque for the end of November, but I'm pretty sure the postal system isn't that bad, as I'd checked online whether they'd done anything with my application just a couple of weeks ago and they hadn't looked at it.
This seems to be pretty standard with HMRC.
I had a long and difficult exchange of correspondence with them a few years back and they were quite obviously pre-dating their letters. The post is good around here yet for some reason their letters were taking weeks to reach me, if you believed the date on them. It was very annoying because they usually time limted my replies by telling me I only had so many days to respond. As a result I was more or less obliged to reply instantly, or else.
Anybody else come across this?
tbh no - I've found HMRC remarkably efficient and helpful (even more so than their Danish or Swiss counterparts, my only point of reference) - with letters coming briskly, reminders at appropriate moments and their phone service particularly good, to the point that they reminded me about legitimate tax deductions to ensure I wasn't overpaying. Perhaps I was just lucky, but I've had several interactions with them over the years, all good. I suppose it depends on the individuals dealing with you.
Another example of Blair's (and continued somewhat by Cameron / Osborne) flawed thinking that hostile / rogue nations could be tamed by being brought into the Western systems of values. Same with Libya, China, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Personally I think it was worth trying to bring Russia “in” and in fact it was a major failure of Western policy not to do more - much more - in the nineties especially.
Agree. When Yeltsin was in charge we could have tried harder with Russia. But instead the West enjoyed wallowing in their failures, thinking it proved how right we were.
We had some third-rate politicians leading us at that time Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush.... They had no long-term vision about how we/they wanted the world to be, or how to bring it about.
Yeltsin was in power between 1991 and 1999. Thatcher and Reagan left their offices in 1989, having helped destroy the Soviet Union (and IMO that was a good thing). Blaming them for what came a couple of years after is a little silly.
In the story above, it's interesting to see that officials were very sceptical (rightly, with hindsight), and that Putin's words were not consistent with their actions. This is perhaps why any attempt to bring Russia "in" were doomed to failure. Besides, much of the large amounts of money we did send went straight into pockets to make the oligarchs.
Gorbachev was definitely of the view that the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but he was talking of the pre-Putin period. Once Vlad was in, the die was cast. He was always an extreme Russian Nationalist, and the advice Blair was given was correct.
The historians will be arguing for decades about this, and it is an open question as to what the collective West could have done, once it was accepted that the Russian Federation was the successor state of the USSR.
Yeltsin was no Liberal, he is the leader who destroyed the Russian Parliament with tank fire. Putin is not just a Russian nationalist, he leads a diverse coalition of interests.
The truth is that, far from humiliating Russia, the collective West has been happy to embrace whichever government emerges in the Kremlin (and generally fears any change). Yet this preference for stability has helped to ensure that there has been no moral reckoning in Russia over the years, as there was in South Africa´s truth and reconciliation commission. The idea that members of the Gestapo would emerge as rulers of post-war Germany is appalling, yet that is close to what has happened in Russia and the West accepted it. The KGB and its allies have been free to rob and rule Russia regardless. Russia is a country with no justice and without justice, freedom has little chance. The crisis in Moscow is a moral one, as much as an economic or political one.
Perhaps if the collective West were to stiffen their spines and insist on their own founding principles, including the UN charter, it might demonstrate that the West is not just based on hypocritical and self-serving greed but actually does believe in the principles of justice and freedom that it says it does. That example would do a lot of good in the darkness of Russia right now, and if you think this is idealistic, remember it was the 1975 Helsinki final act that started the dissident movements that ultimately destroyed Communism in the rest of Europe.
Well, we did reintegrate war criminals back into West German society once it suited us to do so.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
It is true that many appalling figures from the Nazi era were able to live normal lives later, but only after there had been a reckoning first. Several of the most egregious Nazi criminals were tried, and several executed or given severe prison sentences- at Nuremburg not least. Arguably the execution of Ceausescu was a similar reckoning. and while it is true that many Khmer Rouges did join the transitional authority, most of the most critical KR leaders, such as Pol Pot, were indeed arrested.
Even a partial reckoning is a good thing, and Russia has not even had that.
If Ukraine retake Melitopol and cut off the Russians in Crimea, it is hard to see how anyone in Putin's regime survives.
I think Shoigu would would get shit on and take the blame if Melitopol fell. Russia had access to Crimea without out from 2014-22 so its loss is not enough to threaten the Putin regime. The loss of Crimea probably would be enough.
Nobody is going anywhere any time soon by the look of things. Both sides are consolidating and recuperating.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
It's a big ask.
It's more likely the Labour government uses the money for higher public sector wage settlements and redistribution and simply taxes us into stagnation.
Trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles.
Whereas currently we are just standing in the bucket and p**ssing into it?
We are all under-estimating exactly how shite Starmer’s government will be. They have no idea what to do. They are Blairites without the golden economic legacy. They are tax and spenders when we are already taxed to the hilt, mired in debt, and spending way too much
They will run out of cash on day 1
From there we can expect performative Wokery and abject attempts to rejoin the EU without doing so. Labour will disappoint a huge number of people - once the relief at the End of the Tories has abated
What then? Who takes over?
I think I can discern elements of the ‘why I still have to vote Tory in 2024’ campaign right there.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
It's a big ask.
It's more likely the Labour government uses the money for higher public sector wage settlements and redistribution and simply taxes us into stagnation.
Trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles.
Whereas currently we are just standing in the bucket and p**ssing into it?
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
It's a big ask.
A lot of PFI contracts will begin to come to an end in the next 10 years. Instead of ‘good as new’ facilities being handed over to the public sector, we will be getting shells ready to be torn down with nobody to sue for breach of contract because the PFI companies have paid it all out in dividends.
The legacy of PFI hasn’t even begun to bite. A whole new many billion pound capex programme will be needed.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
It's a big ask.
It's more likely the Labour government uses the money for higher public sector wage settlements and redistribution and simply taxes us into stagnation.
Trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles.
Whereas currently we are just standing in the bucket and p**ssing into it?
You have to grow the pie.
Yet to see any policies from Labour on this.
Given how much of Conservative policy (housing, energy and efficiency, divergence from Europe for the sake of it) actively shrinks the pie, just Not Being Idiots could pick a decent amount of low-hanging fruit.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
On the other hand the 1990s Tories look like first class professionals compared to the current lot. There is zero political direction from no10. I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing, but there’s something not quite right with Sunak. They look like they’re going through the motions.
Politics in Britain has devolved to a question of where to spend more money, which taxes to cut, which services to cut that you hope people won't notice and ditto with stealth tax rises.
It's a paint-by-numbers pastiche of Blairism, but without the messianic motive force from Blair, and without the superficially decent economic performance helping to make the numbers add up.
There's no analysis of what's wrong with the country or vision of how to fix it, or determination to create a lasting change. It's all short-term tactical shuffling about of diminishing amounts of money and mouthing of soundbites in the hope of retaining political office. They're all empty suits.
As resentment at a drop in real-terms income builds, with ongoing fiscal drag, voters will vote to target those who they think still have money.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
I think any realistic plan for a turnaround in Britain's fortunes involves an increase in tax on someone - wealthy property owners or higher earners being about the only options.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
It's a big ask.
It's more likely the Labour government uses the money for higher public sector wage settlements and redistribution and simply taxes us into stagnation.
Trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles.
Whereas currently we are just standing in the bucket and p**ssing into it?
You have to grow the pie.
Yet to see any policies from Labour on this.
Given how much of Conservative policy (housing, energy and efficiency, divergence from Europe for the sake of it) actively shrinks the pie, just Not Being Idiots could pick a decent amount of low-hanging fruit.
It's not a complete answer, but it's a start.
Again, that's an emotional response driven by dislike of the Tories (an awful lot of those atm) and wishful thinking on top to complete the confirmation bias circle.
You could make a case that Starmer sneaking back into the single market would help growth a bit but, remember, even the most optimistic forecasts say that'd only raise GDP by a couple of percent or so over several years and it will be offset by Labour moonbatshittery on growth suppressing taxation.
Labour is simply dining off contempt for the Tories here.
Comments
He ended up with scarred feet, weak bones, and very bad breath.
He was a super-calloused fragile mystic vexed by halitosis.
The word cloud from the PP poll about the year ahead.
They do seem to offer all parties to panel members, to the point that 1% in the North and Midlands intend to vote SNP.
Link to tables here:
https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1608746005444571136?t=KO_srDXrXrrYW9sY8JaH5Q&s=19
They will run out of cash on day 1
From there we can expect performative Wokery and abject attempts to rejoin the EU without doing so. Labour will disappoint a huge number of people - once the relief at the End of the Tories has abated
What then? Who takes over?
Controversial online influencer Andrew Tate has been detained in Romania as part of a human trafficking and rape investigation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64122628
You: This test has *draw* written all over it.
(That leaves @Northern_Al with a serious dilemma. Now the draw is ruled out, which side does he back to win?)
Edit - bloody hell, draw just ain't happening, @DavidL has predicted it too.
Me :Thanks for the tip.
New Zealand to win. Williamson will score a daddy hundred, Pakistan won't make 250 in their second innings. Just enough time for NZ to knock off the 100 needed.
Slightly different circumstances though as the Conservatives have already been in power for 12 years not just 4 as was the case in 1974 when Heath lost
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1608529153225113601
Three wickets fall, and that was a stupid dismissal from Imam.
Heath was (strange to think now) a popular new broom who led the party to a slightly unexpected election win, and proceeded to fuck up. Though he’ll always have Europe.
Sunak is just the caretaker of a fag end, failed administration.
The overthrow of Ceaucescu was done by his associates, who assumed power. In Cambodia, the government in the early years of this century was dominated by ex Khmer Rouge.
Sometimes, all one can do is accept people who are less bad than those they overthrow.
It's why we should be particularly concerned by the underfunding of the criminal justice system in the UK, and the way in which clashes with the judiciary are relished by some politicians as creating a political benefit.
The battles to ensure that the monarch was not above the law are an exceptionally, and much neglected, part of English history.
Whether they were good changes is something of a different question.
Note he voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001 but has voted Conservative since
Lionised by the US right.
We also didn't have the Heath era like strikes and high inflation under most of the Boris government, they have come under the Truss and Sunak government now in particular
But put that aside and the left are leading the right by 54% to 27%, so neatly 2:1.
Three years ago they won an 80 seat majority; how did the Tories manage to f*ck it up so really, so fast?
In which case you could see some Mosleyite "New Party" as the more likely historical parallel. I am sure Mr, Farage would like to oblige. It would be a disaster of course, but there is an awful lot of ruin in a nation.
They are just socially liberal and pro EU too, which the Cameron era Tories too were then.
Most social democrats now vote Starmer Labour, the LDs now are largely a rump party of economic and social liberals who just dislike Brexit
I don't expect much from a Starmer administration, but the problems that the UK has are not amenable to quick solutions, particularly when the hole in the bucket cannot be repaired, or even be mentioned by name.
Badenoch is no Thatcher, and Thatcherism is no solution to our current malaise. She is more likely the new William Hague, good at oratory but ineffective at reviving the party.
Well...
I had a long and difficult exchange of correspondence with them a few years back and they were quite obviously pre-dating their letters. The post is good around here yet for some reason their letters were taking weeks to reach me, if you believed the date on them. It was very annoying because they usually time limted my replies by telling me I only had so many days to respond. As a result I was more or less obliged to reply instantly, or else.
Anybody else come across this?
Where's Malc when you need him?
There's a good chance that if Ukraine wins the war its victory will help to ensure that the next thirty years sees more progress towards the rule of law, open market economies and free democracies across the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. But most likely that Russia will still be governed by a nationalist authoritarian.
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1608735970131849217?t=rEcnJ9qU9-0EWIyRUorSeQ&s=19
Looks like she has just taken 33 cars off the road, including a V12 Bugatti.
Economically and socially liberal is not exactly a rump point of view.
Others believe the Truss Kwarteng interregnum stole by ambition and incompetence so many £billions that our public services will never recover and is the reason they no longer function
Then there's all of us who saw our government taken over by a hedonistic bunch of self pleasuring pirates whose behaviour led to a national feeling of nausea
Dog poo just doesn't so it justice
Mr. Punter, every letter I've ever received from HMRC apparently took 2-3 weeks, or more, to arrive.
Genuinely funny in the Sun. Parents at a primary school complaining that putting a cycle track in a "narrow" lane (actually 2m wider than minimum since it's the old Durham Sunderland road) will put their children's lives at risk.
Illustrated by assorted photos of the road entirely clogged up with parents' cars.
Done by the Sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20590510/kids-lives-at-risk-bike-lane-school/
EB110 was the V12 and much cooler Bugatti sired by a cabal of separatists from Lamborghini in the 90s.
That means ever higher taxation on higher earners.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/30/hard-truths-conservatives-boris-johnson-disastrous-leader
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-was-grown-on-the-magic-money-tree-fxgmw26gj
Even a partial reckoning is a good thing, and Russia has not even had that.
Or am I just out of phase on the intra-left wars
Past a certain point, it's taking the piss.
As a centre-left voter who has always been an enthusiast for European unity, I would find it quite hard to vote Labour, given Keir Starmer’s apparent policies. I think my alternatives are LibDem or Green!
And the last time I voted Green, in a council election, my candidate won, defeating a long, established Conservative!
That might be a reckoning, of a sort.
The risk is that a full-blown Army dictatorship then takes power.
HMQ (God rest her soul) did that every night for 70 years, and I bet she did it quicker too.
Then whichever government is in control has one chance to use the time that money brings to ensure that in 5-10 years time the government is paying less debt interest, less on the dead hand of PFI, the economy is more productive and key parts of public administration function more efficiently.
It's a big ask.
The odds of Bozo returning as PM should be less than Truss returning.
In summary:
• Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
• Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
• Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873
(Increasing levels of home ownership before people's parents die would help, but it's not a complete answer)
That could change, either because one party says something controversial or because Labour wins an overall majority and the LDs suddenly start opposing it.
Trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handles.
It's funny how everyone loves a terrible government when they don't have to have anything to do with it
There's this belief that successful gamblers (and I'm not saying I am, btw) are always Mystic Meg sages that spot things years before everyone else and, when they do, what they say should be listened to with baited breath for next time.
That's not how it works. I look for value. And that usually means outside where everyone else is looking.
Right now, Boris is 10/1 as next PM; I think that's value, so I bet.
Failed to recycle a pizza box
Nobody is going anywhere any time soon by the look of things. Both sides are consolidating and recuperating.
Yet to see any policies from Labour on this.
The legacy of PFI hasn’t even begun to bite. A whole new many billion pound capex programme will be needed.
It's not a complete answer, but it's a start.
You could make a case that Starmer sneaking back into the single market would help growth a bit but, remember, even the most optimistic forecasts say that'd only raise GDP by a couple of percent or so over several years and it will be offset by Labour moonbatshittery on growth suppressing taxation.
Labour is simply dining off contempt for the Tories here.
Of course, that will probably be enough.