Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Tories, huh, yeah, what are they good for? Absolutely nothing, uhh – politicalbetting.com

13»

Comments

  • Options

    One interesting thing about Zahawi is that Rory Stewart rates (or rated) him, describing him as genial and hard working.

    Nevertheless, he appears to be a massive crook.

    Bernard Madoff and Geoffrey Epstein were without a shadow of a doubt both, or rather all 3, of those things.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
  • Options

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
    At 61ish I am really taken with the no medical interventions after 75 policy (as a personal decision not a blanket ban). I am told this means i am really a Nazi euthanaser at heart.

    But we could end up with everyone who can afford it paying a socking great one off insurance premium to cover the combined risks of needing healthcare and needing care after that age.
    I'm 61 in a fortnight. Can we make it 80 please?
    It's entirely voluntary. My feeling, 14 more years of this and I'm done.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,875

    Nevertheless, he appears to be a massive crook.

    I read that as cock...
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,124
    edited January 2023
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    I disagree. And there was no faux white knight like Johnson to save the day back then.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
    At 61ish I am really taken with the no medical interventions after 75 policy (as a personal decision not a blanket ban). I am told this means i am really a Nazi euthanaser at heart.

    But we could end up with everyone who can afford it paying a socking great one off insurance premium to cover the combined risks of needing healthcare and needing care after that age.
    I'm 61 in a fortnight. Can we make it 80 please?
    It's entirely voluntary. My feeling, 14 more years of this and I'm done.
    That’s a pretty long commitment to PB, to be fair.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    There was a sort of Laurel and Hardy comedy about Major and the various fine messes he got into, which is absent now. As noted below, Zahawi utterly dwarfs the likes of Aitken and Hamilton, as does fast track PPE.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,124
    Scott_xP said:

    Nevertheless, he appears to be a massive crook.

    I read that as cock...
    That too.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,875
    ydoethur said:

    I'll have to take your word for it because I knew very little about him before vaccines. I imagine most people were in the same boat.

    The biggest black mark against him is his undying love for BoZo.

    He is arguably a bigger supporter than Nads.

    It was his shoulder Nads was crying upon when BoZo pulled out the first time.

    He supported BoZo all through partygate, and beyond.
  • Options
    TimS said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    I'm sure that Remainders are going to stop bring angry about Brexit way before most Leavers will.
    Understandable.

    Waiter: “Would you like a dessert”
    Customer 1: “oh yes, the knickerbocker glory please”
    Customer 2 (patting tummy): “no thanks, I’m stuffed”

    10 minutes later

    “Your desserts - 2 crème brûlées”
    “I didn’t order dessert. But oh well, I’ll have a spoon or two”
    “This isn’t the dessert I ordered. Where’s my knickerbocker glory? I specifically ordered it because I used to love them as a kid in the 50s”
    Possibly my earliest memory is having a knickerbocker glory in Woolworths.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    There was a sort of Laurel and Hardy comedy about Major and the various fine messes he got into, which is absent now. As noted below, Zahawi utterly dwarfs the likes of Aitken and Hamilton, as does fast track PPE.
    There was definitely more of an edge to it in 97 - Martin Bell and the white suit etc?
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
    At 61ish I am really taken with the no medical interventions after 75 policy (as a personal decision not a blanket ban). I am told this means i am really a Nazi euthanaser at heart.

    But we could end up with everyone who can afford it paying a socking great one off insurance premium to cover the combined risks of needing healthcare and needing care after that age.
    I'm 61 in a fortnight. Can we make it 80 please?
    It's entirely voluntary. My feeling, 14 more years of this and I'm done.
    That’s a pretty long commitment to PB, to be fair.
    The nightmare is, outliving HYUFD.

    Right, time to make the year's marmalade. With Seville oranges at 3.30 a kilo this feels like mere indulgence, but presumably the ready made stuff has gone up proportionately.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    Third marathon of 2023: a slow 5hr 50m. Felt very queasy at about 20 miles which really slowed me down. Also quite a fierce wind at times.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    I'll have to take your word for it because I knew very little about him before vaccines. I imagine most people were in the same boat.

    The biggest black mark against him is his undying love for BoZo.

    He is arguably a bigger supporter than Nads.

    It was his shoulder Nads was crying upon when BoZo pulled out the first time.

    He supported BoZo all through partygate, and beyond.
    Sunak supported Boris through partygate They were fined together.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596

    TimS said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    I'm sure that Remainders are going to stop bring angry about Brexit way before most Leavers will.
    Understandable.

    Waiter: “Would you like a dessert”
    Customer 1: “oh yes, the knickerbocker glory please”
    Customer 2 (patting tummy): “no thanks, I’m stuffed”

    10 minutes later

    “Your desserts - 2 crème brûlées”
    “I didn’t order dessert. But oh well, I’ll have a spoon or two”
    “This isn’t the dessert I ordered. Where’s my knickerbocker glory? I specifically ordered it because I used to love them as a kid in the 50s”
    Possibly my earliest memory is having a knickerbocker glory in Woolworths.
    Apparently I once fell asleep on the floor in Woolworths.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    A piece of nostalgia for @ydoethur ‘s notice.

    Apparently there were organs on planes.

    "An organ was installed on a Northwest Stratocruiser in the 1950s through an arrangement with local musician Swanee Swanson. The organists received free flights to New York and other East Coast destinations."

    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614033947670839296

    So this lasted until at least the 70s. Here's a photo of the Piano bar on a 747 from March 20, 1972. Basically a small Wurlitzer organ bolted to the deck.
    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614046586119815168


  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596

    Third marathon of 2023: a slow 5hr 50m. Felt very queasy at about 20 miles which really slowed me down. Also quite a fierce wind at times.

    You're supposed to eat pasta the night before, not baked beans.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,090

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    There was a sort of Laurel and Hardy comedy about Major and the various fine messes he got into, which is absent now. As noted below, Zahawi utterly dwarfs the likes of Aitken and Hamilton, as does fast track PPE.
    There was definitely more of an edge to it in 97 - Martin Bell and the white suit etc?
    The sad thing is that in 97 we were shocked by it. Now people just shrug.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,124
    edited January 2023
    Nigelb said:

    A piece of nostalgia for @ydoethur ‘s notice.

    Apparently there were organs on planes.

    "An organ was installed on a Northwest Stratocruiser in the 1950s through an arrangement with local musician Swanee Swanson. The organists received free flights to New York and other East Coast destinations."

    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614033947670839296

    So this lasted until at least the 70s. Here's a photo of the Piano bar on a 747 from March 20, 1972. Basically a small Wurlitzer organ bolted to the deck.
    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614046586119815168


    A massive organ has been known to, from time to time, travel on the SpaceX Starlink too.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,090
    Scott_xP said:

    Nevertheless, he appears to be a massive crook.

    I read that as cock...
    Ha ha, so did I (genuinely).
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,875

    Nigelb said:

    A piece of nostalgia for @ydoethur ‘s notice.

    Apparently there were organs on planes.

    "An organ was installed on a Northwest Stratocruiser in the 1950s through an arrangement with local musician Swanee Swanson. The organists received free flights to New York and other East Coast destinations."

    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614033947670839296

    So this lasted until at least the 70s. Here's a photo of the Piano bar on a 747 from March 20, 1972. Basically a small Wurlitzer organ bolted to the deck.
    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614046586119815168


    A massive organ has been known to, from time to time, travel on the SpaceX Starlink too.
    I thought we confirmed recently that sports cars usually have tiny organs onboard
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    What utter Little Englander bollox of the highest order.
    You’re still not getting a vote, you haggis-fucking pervert

    England rules. England decides. England is the senior member of the Union. And England says No. And what the fucking mcFuck are you going to do about it? Throw turnips at Queen Camilla?

    Lol

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980

    TimS said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    I'm sure that Remainders are going to stop bring angry about Brexit way before most Leavers will.
    Understandable.

    Waiter: “Would you like a dessert”
    Customer 1: “oh yes, the knickerbocker glory please”
    Customer 2 (patting tummy): “no thanks, I’m stuffed”

    10 minutes later

    “Your desserts - 2 crème brûlées”
    “I didn’t order dessert. But oh well, I’ll have a spoon or two”
    “This isn’t the dessert I ordered. Where’s my knickerbocker glory? I specifically ordered it because I used to love them as a kid in the 50s”
    Possibly my earliest memory is having a knickerbocker glory in Woolworths.
    Apparently I once fell asleep on the floor in Woolworths.
    My mother once went to a party in London attended by the Woolworth heir in the 1980s who arrived on the roof by helicopter
  • Options

    One interesting thing about Zahawi is that Rory Stewart rates (or rated) him, describing him as genial and hard working.

    Nevertheless, he appears to be a massive crook.

    Perfectly possible to be all three. Indeed a genial manner and good work ethic can make a crook more effective at their crookery.

    A Boris Johnson who worked harder and wasn't quite such an obvious sh1t could have done even more harm than the one we experienced in our timeline.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    edited January 2023

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    The last Mori under Smith had Tories 29% Labour 44% in early May 1994.

    The first Mori under Blair had Labour 49% Tories 28%

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Yeah but, you can't directly measure Smith-Labour 1994 against Blair- Labour 1997 because a lot of Tory s*** happened in those three years.
    Blair is as far as I am aware the only Labour leader ever to achieve a Labour poll rating over 60%, which he did in late 1994 and 1995.

  • Options

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    There was a sort of Laurel and Hardy comedy about Major and the various fine messes he got into, which is absent now. As noted below, Zahawi utterly dwarfs the likes of Aitken and Hamilton, as does fast track PPE.
    There was definitely more of an edge to it in 97 - Martin Bell and the white suit etc?
    The sad thing is that in 97 we were shocked by it. Now people just shrug.
    For all that there were baduns in the Conservative party of 1997, they were a minority and mostly in the lower reaches of the party. You could see the gaps between the scandals. Now they seem more numerous and higher up. So we move from one scandal being a shock to ten scandals being just a blur.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,132

    Third marathon of 2023: a slow 5hr 50m. Felt very queasy at about 20 miles which really slowed me down. Also quite a fierce wind at times.

    Console yourself with the fact that you are capable of running a marathon in the first place. I compete in ten milers and half-marathons but daren't move up. Certainly not with how stiff my knees are after this morning's little training effort.

    Where were you out racing, if you don't mind my being nosy?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    While I can see the cathartic appeal, I'm not sure that's the best way to win hearts and minds to keep Scotland in 'our family of nations' longterm. If the UK spends the next 20 years telling Scotland to shut up and fuck off, they will do so.
    How? Really? How??

    Madrid told Barcelona to go fish, and Catalonian Indy is further away than ever

    Just tell the Jocks to like it or lump it. They had their chance, now they have to knuckle down and give us their water and wind power sand be happy we don’t send @HYUFD in his biplane to hurl down petards at them
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    Interesting article, if only for the notion that Republicans might pivot on the green economy.
    Kemp is being disingenuous in his claims (and spouts the usual GOP BS on climate change), since much of the investment into his state comes as a result of Biden’s bill massively subsidising such industries, but it’s nonetheless something of a positive development.

    Brian Kemp and the Electric Car: A Love Story

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/13/brian-kemp-electric-car-georgia-00077579
    … While national Republicans are bereft of a positive vision — still reeling from the chaos of the Trump presidency and the misery of a disappointing midterm election — Kemp is a rare actor in his party trying something shrewd and new. Where many Republicans have ignored climate as an issue or ridiculed people who care about it, Kemp has moved aggressively to claim the economic opportunities associated with fighting climate change and then take credit for them on the campaign trail.

    His approach is essentially an inversion of greenwashing, the corporate public-relations practice of giving an environmentalist sheen to activities that are anything but. The Georgia governor does the opposite, championing a set of policies that aid the energy transition while insisting his motivations have nothing to do with controlling emissions.

    To Kemp, his agenda does not qualify as climate action: “It’s just letting the market work.”

    The green-manufacturing market is working fast in Georgia. Hours before I sat down with Kemp on Wednesday, on the eve of his inauguration to a second term, the Korean conglomerate Hanwha announced plans for a massive solar-panel facility in Georgia. It was the latest in a multibillion-dollar series of economic development trophies Kemp has claimed in the energy sector, including immense investments linked to the electric-vehicle supply chain from companies like Hyundai, Rivian and SK Battery.…
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,919
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    What utter Little Englander bollox of the highest order.
    You’re still not getting a vote, you haggis-fucking pervert

    England rules. England decides. England is the senior member of the Union. And England says No. And what the fucking mcFuck are you going to do about it? Throw turnips at Queen Camilla?

    Lol

    I'm now reminded of a scurrilous rumour about one of the royals who spent a good chunk of the late 70s off their t*ts doing lines with a pop star and would amuse themselves by throwing raw potatoes at a guy tied up in a gimp suit.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    What utter Little Englander bollox of the highest order.
    You’re still not getting a vote, you haggis-fucking pervert

    England rules. England decides. England is the senior member of the Union. And England says No. And what the fucking mcFuck are you going to do about it? Throw turnips at Queen Camilla?

    Lol

    A brilliant encapsulation of the Tory case for the Union.
    Which is probably the greatest threat to it.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    What utter Little Englander bollox of the highest order.
    You’re still not getting a vote, you haggis-fucking pervert

    England rules. England decides. England is the senior member of the Union. And England says No. And what the fucking mcFuck are you going to do about it? Throw turnips at Queen Camilla?

    Lol

    A brilliant encapsulation of the Tory case for the Union.
    Which is probably the greatest threat to it.
    Except it is not true is it, Holyrood now runs most Scottish domestic policy and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who prevented Sturgeon holding a lawful indyref2 is Scottish
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,532
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    The most recently rescued were suffering severe hypothermia, so it doesn’t look good for the missing.

    Dnipro apartment block update:

    "As per the State Emergency Service, as of 13:00,, 23 people are known to have died incl one child. 72 were injured incl 13 children. 39 people were rescued incl 6 children. 43 reports of missing persons have been received" - Dnipro City Council

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1614597345588527106
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    pigeon said:

    Third marathon of 2023: a slow 5hr 50m. Felt very queasy at about 20 miles which really slowed me down. Also quite a fierce wind at times.

    Console yourself with the fact that you are capable of running a marathon in the first place. I compete in ten milers and half-marathons but daren't move up. Certainly not with how stiff my knees are after this morning's little training effort.

    Where were you out racing, if you don't mind my being nosy?
    No probs. Out of my front door in Cambourne, along the old road east into Cambridge. 10 miles into the city centre. Then down to the railway station, and along the footpath alongside the misguided bus to Trumington (13.1 miles to park and ride). Then down the A10 over the M11, and then along the muddy bridleway to Haslingfield. Then roads northwestwards through Harlton and the Eversdens to Kingston and Bourn, then back home.

    I'm quite lucky that this circular route is 200 metres more than a marathon, without having to do any silly loops to reach the distance.

    And I'm not a racer. As I'm planning to do loads of them this year, I'm more concerned with just completing them without knackering myself. It makes Gary McKee's achievement of running a marathon every day last year even more amazing - his average time was just over four hours!
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    Nigelb said:

    A piece of nostalgia for @ydoethur ‘s notice.

    Apparently there were organs on planes.

    "An organ was installed on a Northwest Stratocruiser in the 1950s through an arrangement with local musician Swanee Swanson. The organists received free flights to New York and other East Coast destinations."

    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614033947670839296

    So this lasted until at least the 70s. Here's a photo of the Piano bar on a 747 from March 20, 1972. Basically a small Wurlitzer organ bolted to the deck.
    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614046586119815168


    There was probably a full sized Norman church planned for the Saunders Roe P.192
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    I’m going to put some Savlon on it
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yet Starmer has a significantly smaller lead over Sunak as preferred PM than Blair had over Major as preferred PM pre 1997 or indeed Blair had over Hague after his election win.

    That suggests while Labour will win it will not be a huge landslide on the scale of 1997 or 2001
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474

    Nigelb said:

    A piece of nostalgia for @ydoethur ‘s notice.

    Apparently there were organs on planes.

    "An organ was installed on a Northwest Stratocruiser in the 1950s through an arrangement with local musician Swanee Swanson. The organists received free flights to New York and other East Coast destinations."

    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614033947670839296

    So this lasted until at least the 70s. Here's a photo of the Piano bar on a 747 from March 20, 1972. Basically a small Wurlitzer organ bolted to the deck.
    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614046586119815168

    There was probably a full sized Norman church planned for the Saunders Roe P.192
    It was bit of a a thing for luxury transport, back in the day.

    https://www.musikautomaten.ch/mma/en/home/britannic-orgel/history-of-the-organ.html
    The Britannic organ in Seewen is a variant of the base model V-VI of the Welte Philharmonic organ with a dual console and pedal as well as a roll mechanism for automated play. During restoration of the organ at the end of March 2007, an inscription was found stamped on one of the off-note motors that pointed to the organ's original purpose. While cleaning normally hidden beams, the word "Britanik" was stamped on four different locations on the original organ. Additional inscriptions were found at the end of May 2007 brining the total inscriptions found to six. The organ was intended for the ocean steamer Britannic - the sister ship to the Titanic. This type of organ was documented for the ship, but had been considered lost until recently.

    The organ was never installed, since the Britannic was sunk during the First World War in 1916…
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    Only because we’d worked off all of our hate through the 80s, futile though it proved!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yes, I concur. The Tories weren’t viewed with brutal contempt the way they are now. They were seen as being inept and exhausted in 97, and due a long period in opposition. But they also had the national sense that Thatcher had done very good things to sustain them, hence Blair accepting the Thatcherite settlement and ditching Clause 4 etc

    Comparisons with 97 are simply wrong. Too much is too different. The 2023 Tories face an unprecedented disaster, to my mind. Likely WORSE than 97, unless they can magic something up

    Indeed one of the few things that might save Sunak is if the polls continue as they do, and enough people get worried and decide they don’t want to give Labour a 350 seat majority
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    edited January 2023

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    There was a sort of Laurel and Hardy comedy about Major and the various fine messes he got into, which is absent now. As noted below, Zahawi utterly dwarfs the likes of Aitken and Hamilton, as does fast track PPE.
    Bigger picture, we are slowly sliding towards the semi-corrupt, big-money-driven, relaxed-attitude-to-honesty politics that they already have in the US. Which isn’t an encouraging thought.

    Cf the recent revelation that a bunch of leading moderate Labour MPs had taken tens of £thousands from a shell company where it still remains a mystery where that money originated. And they’re not even, yet, in power.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yet Starmer has a significantly smaller lead over Sunak as preferred PM than Blair had over Major as preferred PM pre 1997 or indeed Blair had over Hague after his election win.

    That suggests while Labour will win it will not be a huge landslide on the scale of 1997 or 2001
    Way too many confounding factors to draw that conclusion.
    One key is how efficiently the vote will be distributed for the opposition - and the mechanics of that are utterly different from 1997.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yes, I concur. The Tories weren’t viewed with brutal contempt the way they are now. They were seen as being inept and exhausted in 97, and due a long period in opposition. But they also had the national sense that Thatcher had done very good things to sustain them, hence Blair accepting the Thatcherite settlement and ditching Clause 4 etc

    Comparisons with 97 are simply wrong. Too much is too different. The 2023 Tories face an unprecedented disaster, to my mind. Likely WORSE than 97, unless they can magic something up

    Indeed one of the few things that might save Sunak is if the polls continue as they do, and enough people get worried and decide they don’t want to give Labour a 350 seat majority
    My gut is actually it will be a 2010 style hung parliament, Labour may not even get a majority, let alone a landslide, especially without more Scottish seats.

    Even if Labour still win most seats and Starmer like Cameron becomes PM
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,216

    pigeon said:

    Third marathon of 2023: a slow 5hr 50m. Felt very queasy at about 20 miles which really slowed me down. Also quite a fierce wind at times.

    Console yourself with the fact that you are capable of running a marathon in the first place. I compete in ten milers and half-marathons but daren't move up. Certainly not with how stiff my knees are after this morning's little training effort.

    Where were you out racing, if you don't mind my being nosy?
    No probs. Out of my front door in Cambourne, along the old road east into Cambridge. 10 miles into the city centre. Then down to the railway station, and along the footpath alongside the misguided bus to Trumington (13.1 miles to park and ride). Then down the A10 over the M11, and then along the muddy bridleway to Haslingfield. Then roads northwestwards through Harlton and the Eversdens to Kingston and Bourn, then back home.

    I'm quite lucky that this circular route is 200 metres more than a marathon, without having to do any silly loops to reach the distance.

    And I'm not a racer. As I'm planning to do loads of them this year, I'm more concerned with just completing them without knackering myself. It makes Gary McKee's achievement of running a marathon every day last year even more amazing - his average time was just over four hours!
    How have your Monday's been? The only time I ran a marathon I had serious difficulties getting down the stairs the next morning!
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yet Starmer has a significantly smaller lead over Sunak as preferred PM than Blair had over Major as preferred PM pre 1997 or indeed Blair had over Hague after his election win.

    That suggests while Labour will win it will not be a huge landslide on the scale of 1997 or 2001
    That we are discussing a labour win not being as large as the epochal landslide in 1997 shows how far we have come.

    I agree the Tories were not hated in 1997. They were however seen as utterly incompetent. Unlike now there wasn’t a culture war opportunity for them - migration, gender, Europe: not fertile ground in 1997 (though I doubt they are really that fertile now to be honest, certainly not Europe and probably not gender).
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Pretty much my recollection, too.

    Major was pitied more than anything. Not a good thing for a PM, sure, but I'd argue better than being pitied and hated, which looks like Sunak's fate.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yes, I concur. The Tories weren’t viewed with brutal contempt the way they are now. They were seen as being inept and exhausted in 97, and due a long period in opposition. But they also had the national sense that Thatcher had done very good things to sustain them, hence Blair accepting the Thatcherite settlement and ditching Clause 4 etc

    Comparisons with 97 are simply wrong. Too much is too different. The 2023 Tories face an unprecedented disaster, to my mind. Likely WORSE than 97, unless they can magic something up

    Indeed one of the few things that might save Sunak is if the polls continue as they do, and enough people get worried and decide they don’t want to give Labour a 350 seat majority
    My gut is actually it will be a 2010 style hung parliament, Labour may not even get a majority, let alone a landslide, especially without more Scottish seats.

    Even if Labour still win most seats and Starmer like Cameron becomes PM
    If we’re comparing with the last 3 Labour victories and the 2010 hung parliament we should probably make a Scotland adjustment to compare like for like. Total Labour seat count minus the 2015-2010 delta in SLab seats. The 2015 election was so transformational and probably permanent that the usual rules of swing don’t really apply.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Pretty much my recollection, too.

    Major was pitied more than anything. Not a good thing for a PM, sure, but I'd argue better than being pitied and hated, which looks like Sunak's fate.
    I don't think Sunak is pitied, Truss was at the end, not Sunak.

    The left dislike Sunak but he is not pitied
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    A piece of nostalgia for @ydoethur ‘s notice.

    Apparently there were organs on planes.

    "An organ was installed on a Northwest Stratocruiser in the 1950s through an arrangement with local musician Swanee Swanson. The organists received free flights to New York and other East Coast destinations."

    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614033947670839296

    So this lasted until at least the 70s. Here's a photo of the Piano bar on a 747 from March 20, 1972. Basically a small Wurlitzer organ bolted to the deck.
    https://twitter.com/Silpayamanant/status/1614046586119815168

    There was probably a full sized Norman church planned for the Saunders Roe P.192
    It was bit of a a thing for luxury transport, back in the day.

    https://www.musikautomaten.ch/mma/en/home/britannic-orgel/history-of-the-organ.html
    The Britannic organ in Seewen is a variant of the base model V-VI of the Welte Philharmonic organ with a dual console and pedal as well as a roll mechanism for automated play. During restoration of the organ at the end of March 2007, an inscription was found stamped on one of the off-note motors that pointed to the organ's original purpose. While cleaning normally hidden beams, the word "Britanik" was stamped on four different locations on the original organ. Additional inscriptions were found at the end of May 2007 brining the total inscriptions found to six. The organ was intended for the ocean steamer Britannic - the sister ship to the Titanic. This type of organ was documented for the ship, but had been considered lost until recently.

    The organ was never installed, since the Britannic was sunk during the First World War in 1916…
    I had a very good time on a BA flight to Australia - the business class was in the “hump” of the 747, behind the pilots. At the back of this was a serving station, with lockers etc, where originally Boeing had planned for a cocktail bar, back in the day…

    After 3 hours into the flight, the nice lady working there unlocked everything, said help yourselves and went downstairs to help her colleagues. We recreated the bar all the way to the Singapore stop…
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,132

    pigeon said:

    Third marathon of 2023: a slow 5hr 50m. Felt very queasy at about 20 miles which really slowed me down. Also quite a fierce wind at times.

    Console yourself with the fact that you are capable of running a marathon in the first place. I compete in ten milers and half-marathons but daren't move up. Certainly not with how stiff my knees are after this morning's little training effort.

    Where were you out racing, if you don't mind my being nosy?
    No probs. Out of my front door in Cambourne, along the old road east into Cambridge. 10 miles into the city centre. Then down to the railway station, and along the footpath alongside the misguided bus to Trumington (13.1 miles to park and ride). Then down the A10 over the M11, and then along the muddy bridleway to Haslingfield. Then roads northwestwards through Harlton and the Eversdens to Kingston and Bourn, then back home.

    I'm quite lucky that this circular route is 200 metres more than a marathon, without having to do any silly loops to reach the distance.

    And I'm not a racer. As I'm planning to do loads of them this year, I'm more concerned with just completing them without knackering myself. It makes Gary McKee's achievement of running a marathon every day last year even more amazing - his average time was just over four hours!
    Ah, OK - there are almost always events on somewhere on a Sunday so I thought you might've been taking part in one. I get not wanting to go for it too hard - I worry about my ageing and increasingly creaky frame giving out on me so save the really hard efforts for races, though I was feeling it this morning and ended up finishing my half quite quickly (by my own low standards) despite not setting out to.

    You're not wrong about the wind. I was doing the A10 route northwards into Cambridge this morning (actually I suppose it's not inconceivable that we might have passed one another, depending on the time,) and it was a little fresh out there. Better that than raining though.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Pretty much my recollection, too.

    Major was pitied more than anything. Not a good thing for a PM, sure, but I'd argue better than being pitied and hated, which looks like Sunak's fate.
    Clarke was also popular, as was Heseltine. Looking down the list there were plenty of others not actively disliked: Bottomley, Dorrell, Rifkind, Mawhinney etc. The only truly unpopular ones were Portillo, Howard, Gummer (for the burgers), Lilley.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yes, I concur. The Tories weren’t viewed with brutal contempt the way they are now. They were seen as being inept and exhausted in 97, and due a long period in opposition. But they also had the national sense that Thatcher had done very good things to sustain them, hence Blair accepting the Thatcherite settlement and ditching Clause 4 etc

    Comparisons with 97 are simply wrong. Too much is too different. The 2023 Tories face an unprecedented disaster, to my mind. Likely WORSE than 97, unless they can magic something up

    Indeed one of the few things that might save Sunak is if the polls continue as they do, and enough people get worried and decide they don’t want to give Labour a 350 seat majority
    My gut is actually it will be a 2010 style hung parliament, Labour may not even get a majority, let alone a landslide, especially without more Scottish seats.

    Even if Labour still win most seats and Starmer like Cameron becomes PM
    But when was the last time you went out door knocking on behalf of your corrupt colleagues?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    There was a sort of Laurel and Hardy comedy about Major and the various fine messes he got into, which is absent now. As noted below, Zahawi utterly dwarfs the likes of Aitken and Hamilton, as does fast track PPE.
    Bigger picture, we are slowly sliding towards the semi-corrupt, big-money-driven, relaxed-attitude-to-honesty politics that they already have in the US. Which isn’t an encouraging thought.

    Cf the recent revelation that a bunch of leading moderate Labour MPs had taken tens of £thousands from a shell company where it still remains a mystery where that money originated. And they’re not even, yet, in power.
    It’s just more open. As you dig into government decisions, going way back, you see the phenomenon of civil servants and MPs steering contracts in return for all kinds of support.

    This goes back to the 19th cent and beyond. Read up on the dockyard comedies of 1700s. If you were lucky, the bronze bolts holding your ship together actually existed….

    One of the reasons that Fisher deliberately broke so much furniture in the RN, during the pre-war reforms, was to cut off whole areas of corruption. Bin a whole pile of ancient, unusable ships, and all the maintenance and upgrades went with them….
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,707
    The little red dot on the first photo is a woman sitting in her apartment in
    Dnipro after it had been hit by a Russian missile





    https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1614366762769727488

  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,339
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Pretty much my recollection, too.

    Major was pitied more than anything. Not a good thing for a PM, sure, but I'd argue better than being pitied and hated, which looks like Sunak's fate.
    I don't think Sunak is pitied, Truss was at the end, not Sunak.

    The left dislike Sunak but he is not pitied
    Don't think the left dislike more than other generic Tories. Hate some policies he goes out to defend or promote but isn't necessarily the main face of, sure. And anyway, doesn't matter. Where he's in danger of being pitied is the growing sense from those who have been sympathetic to the Tories in the past, is that he's a nice and diligent enough chap but simply not up to the task of facing down the country's problems and controlling a party whose more unpleasant, self-serving and dafter instincts are seen as either causing or exacerbating said problems.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,117
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yes, I concur. The Tories weren’t viewed with brutal contempt the way they are now. They were seen as being inept and exhausted in 97, and due a long period in opposition. But they also had the national sense that Thatcher had done very good things to sustain them, hence Blair accepting the Thatcherite settlement and ditching Clause 4 etc

    Comparisons with 97 are simply wrong. Too much is too different. The 2023 Tories face an unprecedented disaster, to my mind. Likely WORSE than 97, unless they can magic something up

    Indeed one of the few things that might save Sunak is if the polls continue as they do, and enough people get worried and decide they don’t want to give Labour a 350 seat majority
    My gut is actually it will be a 2010 style hung parliament, Labour may not even get a majority, let alone a landslide, especially without more Scottish seats.

    Even if Labour still win most seats and Starmer like Cameron becomes PM
    But then again, the stuff you post under the guise of rational analysis is so ridiculous as to defy comprehension.

    So when you classify something as "my gut", is it worth any consideration at all?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,599
    Great thread from Marc Veldhoen- Important study showing that with C19 vaccination plus infection is giving protection from reinfection out to at least 8 months. Prediction now is future waves will be more spaced out, with every wave boosting immunity.

    https://twitter.com/laoneill111/status/1614286137366814720
  • Options

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
    At 61ish I am really taken with the no medical interventions after 75 policy (as a personal decision not a blanket ban). I am told this means i am really a Nazi euthanaser at heart.

    But we could end up with everyone who can afford it paying a socking great one off insurance premium to cover the combined risks of needing healthcare and needing care after that age.
    I'm 61 in a fortnight. Can we make it 80 please?
    It's entirely voluntary. My feeling, 14 more years of this and I'm done.
    If PB or any of us are still around in 15 years, please leave a small bequest and your log in details to someone to freak the fuck out of us with dyspeptic posts from beyond the grave.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,319

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
    At 61ish I am really taken with the no medical interventions after 75 policy (as a personal decision not a blanket ban). I am told this means i am really a Nazi euthanaser at heart.

    But we could end up with everyone who can afford it paying a socking great one off insurance premium to cover the combined risks of needing healthcare and needing care after that age.
    I'm 61 in a fortnight. Can we make it 80 please?
    It's entirely voluntary. My feeling, 14 more years of this and I'm done.
    If PB or any of us are still around in 15 years, please leave a small bequest and your log in details to someone to freak the fuck out of us with dyspeptic posts from beyond the grave.
    https://youtu.be/qN5zw04WxCc
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,599
    The SNP has already confessed to the basic facts of this case: the money was spent on other things. It really shouldn’t be taking so long to decide if this is a criminal offence or merely criminal dishonesty.

    https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1614551930830831616

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Yes, I concur. The Tories weren’t viewed with brutal contempt the way they are now. They were seen as being inept and exhausted in 97, and due a long period in opposition. But they also had the national sense that Thatcher had done very good things to sustain them, hence Blair accepting the Thatcherite settlement and ditching Clause 4 etc

    Comparisons with 97 are simply wrong. Too much is too different. The 2023 Tories face an unprecedented disaster, to my mind. Likely WORSE than 97, unless they can magic something up

    Indeed one of the few things that might save Sunak is if the polls continue as they do, and enough people get worried and decide they don’t want to give Labour a 350 seat majority
    My gut is actually it will be a 2010 style hung parliament, Labour may not even get a majority, let alone a landslide, especially without more Scottish seats.

    Even if Labour still win most seats and Starmer like Cameron becomes PM
    I agree. A Labour majority is a big, big ask.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    FF43 said:

    The little red dot on the first photo is a woman sitting in her apartment in
    Dnipro after it had been hit by a Russian missile





    https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1614366762769727488

    What happens when you slam a missile designed to take out aircraft carriers into a residential block.

    There has to be a reckoning for these war crimes.
  • Options

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
    At 61ish I am really taken with the no medical interventions after 75 policy (as a personal decision not a blanket ban). I am told this means i am really a Nazi euthanaser at heart.

    But we could end up with everyone who can afford it paying a socking great one off insurance premium to cover the combined risks of needing healthcare and needing care after that age.
    I'm 61 in a fortnight. Can we make it 80 please?
    It's entirely voluntary. My feeling, 14 more years of this and I'm done.
    If PB or any of us are still around in 15 years, please leave a small bequest and your log in details to someone to freak the fuck out of us with dyspeptic posts from beyond the grave.
    Wilco. Please note I am not naturally dyspeptic, I am just developing a corpus of training data for ChatGPT to work on.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,046

    FF43 said:

    The little red dot on the first photo is a woman sitting in her apartment in
    Dnipro after it had been hit by a Russian missile





    https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1614366762769727488

    What happens when you slam a missile designed to take out aircraft carriers into a residential block.

    There has to be a reckoning for these war crimes.
    I fear the reaction of too many will be 'we can't allow this suffering to continue, therefore sending more weapons is adding fuel to the fire.' On the contrary we should be escalating now with heavier weaponry to deal with the firestarters.
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,977
    The Tories are in the trouble that they are because they’ve taken 13 years of short term decisions, hollowing out vital public services whilst fixating on Brexit, then being utterly fecked when hit by a double whammy of war in Ukraine and a pandemic.

    There’s been 0 long term thinking. In truth, I do think much of the blame lies with Cameron and Osborne.
  • Options
    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    @Leon here is a credible calamity story that you seem to have missed, despite AI playing a small role in it as well.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/13/2147015/-Somewhere-on-Thwaites-Glacier-is-a-fissure-so-deep-that-it-threatens-the-world-s-coastlines
    Basically the Thwaites glacier and sea ice sheet has been protected by large icebergs that had grounded on undersea mountains. They are now breaking free and when they do, within the next few years, the sea ice behind them will collapse driving sea levels up by 2 feet fairly quickly and ultimately by 10 feet once the Thwaites glacier collapses into the sea. A likely trigger point for this is the El Nino effect which starts this year.

    Its going to get a little damp in London and many other coastal cities.
    Bits of London, perhaps. I live near the top a hill so should be fine!
    I live in a village which has the word "hill" in the name so I will be too but you may find quite a lot of sodden Londoners wanting to share your space.
    London is however extraordinarily low-lying. I'm 200 metres away from the beach up a hill, and yet the sea would only be halfway up to my front door before much of London is underwater, leaving Hampstead as an island.
    Hackney Marshes would become Lake Hackney.

    Hampstead would be safe though, and socially speaking it's an island already.
    I used to play rugby on the East Marsh at Hackney Marshes, on one of two rugby pitches among 8 gazillion football pitches. You could hear whenever Orient scored from behind New Spitalfields market. They moved the rugby pitches to the main Marsh when they were temporarily using the East Marsh as a car park for the Olympics and they're still there.
    Yes, it was a fair reflection of the relative popularity of the two sports that there were just a couple of rugby pitches and a gazillion (actually about 120) soccer pitches. Most of the soccer pitches were mininum size so as to cram as many as possible in. Every single one would be in use on a Sunday morning. Even if you were expecting it, It was still quite a sight coming over the canal bridge at that time to look down at 240 football teams all going hard at it.

    At the top end the standard was pretty good too, although I recall division eight of the Haringey & Tottenham League being a bit rustic.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,741
    edited January 2023
    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    I'm sure that Remainders are going to stop bring angry about Brexit way before most Leavers will.
    Understandable.

    Waiter: “Would you like a dessert”
    Customer 1: “oh yes, the knickerbocker glory please”
    Customer 2 (patting tummy): “no thanks, I’m stuffed”

    10 minutes later

    “Your desserts - 2 crème brûlées”
    “I didn’t order dessert. But oh well, I’ll have a spoon or two”
    “This isn’t the dessert I ordered. Where’s my knickerbocker glory? I specifically ordered it because I used to love them as a kid in the 50s”
    Possibly my earliest memory is having a knickerbocker glory in Woolworths.
    Apparently I once fell asleep on the floor in Woolworths.
    My mother once went to a party in London attended by the Woolworth heir in the 1980s who arrived on the roof by helicopter
    A tour of the Woolworth Building is an interesting diversion for a dull afternoon in lower Manhattan. In the words of our guide, "It's always the same. The first generation makes the money, the second generation manages it and the third generation ... [grins furtively] ... just pisses it away."
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    What exactly was Streeting promising? I read that patients could bypass GPs and refer themselves directly to 'specialists' which is journalese for consultants. Obviously I'd forgotten how stupid journalists are about medicine. Is it just a physio appointment? Can't they do that already?

    My fault for believing anything a journalist writes.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,046
    Final thought before an afternoon movie. The Tories couldn't win a majority in 2010 against Gordon Brown, 13 years of Labour government and the near collapse of the banking system. Would they have won a majority in 2015 without the pledged EU referendum? Probably not. Largest party perhaps and maybe Cameron could have cobbled together another government as opposed to the 'weird' Ed Miliband. They won their biggest majority in 30 years in 2019 with a pledge to get Brexit done. So their only national successes since 1992 have involved the offer or promise of Brexit - a project that if it isn't the answer to nothing, they certainly don't know what the ****ing thing is.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,599
    Keir Starmer says he has "concerns" about the Scottish government's gender reforms - specifically the drop in age limit to 16, and the primacy of the Equality Act - but when asked whether he would block or challenge them he says he wants to wait and see what current UK govt does.….

    It was pointed out to Keir Starmer that (most) Scottish Labour MSPs voted for ScotGov's gender reform bill; he says "that was a matter for Scottish Labour" and he's thinking of UK-wide position. He backs "modernising" recognition process, but wants a "respectful" debate about how


    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1614558128145661952
  • Options

    NEW THREAD

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,474
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Pretty much my recollection, too.

    Major was pitied more than anything. Not a good thing for a PM, sure, but I'd argue better than being pitied and hated, which looks like Sunak's fate.
    Clarke was also popular, as was Heseltine. Looking down the list there were plenty of others not actively disliked: Bottomley, Dorrell, Rifkind, Mawhinney etc. The only truly unpopular ones were Portillo, Howard, Gummer (for the burgers), Lilley.
    That’s not to say there wasn’t a section of the electorate which absolutely did hate the Tories.
    But not like today, where it’s a large cross section of the political spectrum which has a learned animus against them.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    I don’t think it’s true they were universally hated.
    They were deeply unpopular, and there was a universal mood of time for a change, but my admittedly subjective impression is that the levels of actual hate were probably lower than they are today.
    You're right. Thatcher was much more hated (and loved, of course) than Major. Major himself didn't arouse such visceral emotion; more "what's the point of him?".
    Yes, the mood was more everyone being utterly fed up with the Tories, rather than a universal desire for them to be consigned to permanent electoral oblivion.
    That feeling seems significantly stronger now, even as there’s less optimism about their likely replacement in government than was the case in 1997.
    Pretty much my recollection, too.

    Major was pitied more than anything. Not a good thing for a PM, sure, but I'd argue better than being pitied and hated, which looks like Sunak's fate.
    Clarke was also popular, as was Heseltine. Looking down the list there were plenty of others not actively disliked: Bottomley, Dorrell, Rifkind, Mawhinney etc. The only truly unpopular ones were Portillo, Howard, Gummer (for the burgers), Lilley.
    That’s not to say there wasn’t a section of the electorate which absolutely did hate the Tories.
    But not like today, where it’s a large cross section of the political spectrum which has a learned animus against them.
    As the Corbynites found in 2019, if you say to internal dissidents "why don't you f#&? off and join the Otherlot Party" enough, eventually they do.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    Tres said:

    pigeon said:

    Third marathon of 2023: a slow 5hr 50m. Felt very queasy at about 20 miles which really slowed me down. Also quite a fierce wind at times.

    Console yourself with the fact that you are capable of running a marathon in the first place. I compete in ten milers and half-marathons but daren't move up. Certainly not with how stiff my knees are after this morning's little training effort.

    Where were you out racing, if you don't mind my being nosy?
    No probs. Out of my front door in Cambourne, along the old road east into Cambridge. 10 miles into the city centre. Then down to the railway station, and along the footpath alongside the misguided bus to Trumington (13.1 miles to park and ride). Then down the A10 over the M11, and then along the muddy bridleway to Haslingfield. Then roads northwestwards through Harlton and the Eversdens to Kingston and Bourn, then back home.

    I'm quite lucky that this circular route is 200 metres more than a marathon, without having to do any silly loops to reach the distance.

    And I'm not a racer. As I'm planning to do loads of them this year, I'm more concerned with just completing them without knackering myself. It makes Gary McKee's achievement of running a marathon every day last year even more amazing - his average time was just over four hours!
    How have your Monday's been? The only time I ran a marathon I had serious difficulties getting down the stairs the next morning!
    Tired, but not too bad on Mondays. I think the fact I used to be a long-distance walker helped.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    To my mind, we spend all our money on treating ailments, and nothing on prevention. We have a culture of sickness but we should strive for a culture of wellness. To put it bluntly we're killing ourselves. We eat shite, don't exercise, have crap quality sleep, worry ourselves to the point of mental illness about money and spend all our lives trying to survive rather than enjoying the brief moment of time we're given on this planet (that we're having a fair crack at taking down with us!)
    What's the answer? Would it be better to spend more of the NHS budget on prevention? Would having free, healthy, balanced school dinners for every kid at state school make kids healthier? Would compulsory education on cooking, nutrition, on keeping yourself healthy and happy work to improve long term health? Wouldn't that be a more valuable education than compulsory maths until 18?
    I know, there's no one as zealous as a recent convert, but if the last few years have taught me anything, it's that you have to look after yourself. I want a government that will help, and that government needs to think way, way outside the box.It's going to take a radical shift in government to turn the behemoth around. I don't think any of the current crop of politicians will measure up.
    Strongly agree with this. The key to longer healthier happier lives lies mostly outside the medical arena. The Brown government was coming close to this in 2010 with the Marmot report.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    edited January 2023
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    To my mind, we spend all our money on treating ailments, and nothing on prevention. We have a culture of sickness but we should strive for a culture of wellness. To put it bluntly we're killing ourselves. We eat shite, don't exercise, have crap quality sleep, worry ourselves to the point of mental illness about money and spend all our lives trying to survive rather than enjoying the brief moment of time we're given on this planet (that we're having a fair crack at taking down with us!)
    What's the answer? Would it be better to spend more of the NHS budget on prevention? Would having free, healthy, balanced school dinners for every kid at state school make kids healthier? Would compulsory education on cooking, nutrition, on keeping yourself healthy and happy work to improve long term health? Wouldn't that be a more valuable education than compulsory maths until 18?
    I know, there's no one as zealous as a recent convert, but if the last few years have taught me anything, it's that you have to look after yourself. I want a government that will help, and that government needs to think way, way outside the box.It's going to take a radical shift in government to turn the behemoth around. I don't think any of the current crop of politicians will measure up.
    Strongly agree with this. The key to longer healthier happier lives lies mostly outside the medical arena. The Brown government was coming close to this in 2010 with the Marmot report.
    I also feel we are closer than we’ve ever been in understanding what makes for a reasonably healthy life.

    Nothing revelatory per se, but we can “hack” and “track” things more easily; things like fasting to reduce diabetes, HIT for fitness, self-quantification apps for sleeping etc.

    For example, apparently ten minutes of direct exposure to sunlight (even on a cloudy day) within one hour of waking has a significant impact on reported levels of well-being.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    TimS said:

    Roger said:

    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    You will no doubt be pleased to learn that Stanley is a french citizen.
    Not pleased. Jealous. French property taxes are expensive so I can well understand how good he must feel not being limited by his f**king son's 90 day deal.
    I have a second home in France and the property tax is tiny. Much lower than equivalent council tax. Maybe I’m lucky.
    Very lucky. My Habitation and Fonciere are significantly higher than equivalent council tax
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,359
    Dura_Ace said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    SJ upgraded his passport to a French one last year so he is sorted.
    What a loss to the nation.
This discussion has been closed.