I hadn’t realised (per Dan Hodges) that Rishi had made his levelling up announcement (also known as the effective end of levelling up in favour of pork for Tory marginals) from the back seat of his chauffeur driven limo.
He is beyond useless. A total tosser.
He got trouble for taking the plane. A fine when in the car. Why didn’t he just take the train?
.@ScotSecofState has told us he is unable to attend our meeting on Tuesday.
He has suggested that @KemiBadenoch, Minister for Women and Equalities, is the appropriate Minister to invite, which we have now done: parliament.scot/chamber-and-co…
Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.
What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.
I don't think it needs much investigation.
Well, that was my point. He's bang to rights - worse than being caught on CCTV or by a speed camera. It's like a burglar posting a video of themselves burgling. But I still wouldn't bother fining him. It's the incompetence of his operation that's striking.
Why not fine him? Or do you think it should be one law for him and another for the rest of us?
If somebody sent a film to the cops showing me in the back seat of a moving car sans belt, would I be issued with a fine?
If so, he should be. If not, he shouldn't. That would seem fair to me. Otherwise he's getting undue leniency or harshness because of who he is.
Undue leniency and harshness are part of the drill. Caesar’s wife needs to be above suspicion.
Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.
What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.
I don't think it needs much investigation.
Well, that was my point. He's bang to rights - worse than being caught on CCTV or by a speed camera. It's like a burglar posting a video of themselves burgling. But I still wouldn't bother fining him. It's the incompetence of his operation that's striking.
Why not fine him? Or do you think it should be one law for him and another for the rest of us?
Sunak's already got a criminal record from partygate. It would do the reputation of our country immeasurable harm for this to be extended via seatbeltgate. A criminal as PM?
Being fined for not wearing a seatbelt doesn’t not make him a criminal.
We watched seatbeltgate on the BBC news. What really pissed off my much better half was Sunak approaching his big car and, rather than opening the door himself, waiting briefly for an aide to open it for him. Privilege or what?
Bodyguards always open the doors, I don't know why exactly but it seems to be the procedure. It's probably meant to be that they check the door and interior first, although in practice they rarely seem to spend any time doing that.
Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.
What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.
I don't think it needs much investigation.
Well, that was my point. He's bang to rights - worse than being caught on CCTV or by a speed camera. It's like a burglar posting a video of themselves burgling. But I still wouldn't bother fining him. It's the incompetence of his operation that's striking.
Why not fine him? Or do you think it should be one law for him and another for the rest of us?
Sunak's already got a criminal record from partygate. It would do the reputation of our country immeasurable harm for this to be extended via seatbeltgate. A criminal as PM?
If everyone who has not always worn a seat belt in the back of a car was a criminal, 99% of the country are criminals!
Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.
Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway
The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.
The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.
I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.
So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
Worth remembering that despite a poor showing in 2019, because the councils contested are mainly in strong Tory areas, they still won by far the most seats in 2019, 3564, and so they still have most to lose.
If Starmer was a leader with a better connection with the public then the potential for a massive loss of Conservative council seats to Labour would look more likely to be realised.
Labour and the LDs combined won more councillors and councils in the 2019 local elections than the Tories despite the fact most seats up were in the Tory English shires. Labour London and Birmingham and Wales and SNP Scotland were not up.
That was how bad it was for the Tories, their worst local elections since 1995 so they have little further to fall this May
Tories won 3,564 councillors, control of 93 councils 30 more than Labour, and got 2,985,959 votes. You are spinning it as a nadir? Little further they can fall this time? a floor they would be hard pressed to fall below? No chance of a terrible night?
Which is exactly how Labour and Lib Dems and Farage would want the Tory’s to be spinning it, isn’t it, ahead of putting those 3,564 councillors, 93 councils, 2,985,959 votes on the line?
WTF are you doing?
I challenge you further on this. So go on, predict the shares from these locals, and we’ll see if you are right.
I’ll go with Lab 40 (no higher because Green will do well) Lib Dems 29 Con 17 (maybe lower if Farage/reform have good night)
My theory is mid term local election night never matches current national polls does it, because the voters know exactly what they need, to protest locally and kick a government. If any of those 2,985,959 Tory votes are disgruntled, there’s loads of options available to them.
Like you agree with me Tory’s currently average 27% in polls, and got 28% in 2019 elections - you expecting a government getting a share in mid term locals which largely matches or out performs what it is currently polling? projected national Con share of 27 or 28% come May? And ruling out fall to 18 or 19%?
Just look what that does to starting point of 3,564 councillors and control of 93 councils. 🧐
I hadn’t realised (per Dan Hodges) that Rishi had made his levelling up announcement (also known as the effective end of levelling up in favour of pork for Tory marginals) from the back seat of his chauffeur driven limo.
He is beyond useless. A total tosser.
He got trouble for taking the plane. A fine when in the car. Why didn’t he just take the train?
I need more Info, sys.
It would have been brilliant for Sunak to do his piece to camera whilst on a train travelling North. Wouldn’t it?
That’s a photo - how do you know the car’s moving ?
There's a pattern of offending.
That's still not moving. You need a video or Tony walks.
I present to the court this Party Political Broadcast from 1997, in which Tony Blair gives a sequence of interviews in the back of his car while not wearing a seatbelt.
That’s a photo - how do you know the car’s moving ?
There's a pattern of offending.
That's still not moving. You need a video or Tony walks.
I present to the court this Party Political Broadcast from 1997, in which Tony Blair gives a sequence of interviews in the back of his car while not wearing a seatbelt.
Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.
Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway
The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.
The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.
I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.
So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
Worth remembering that despite a poor showing in 2019, because the councils contested are mainly in strong Tory areas, they still won by far the most seats in 2019, 3564, and so they still have most to lose.
If Starmer was a leader with a better connection with the public then the potential for a massive loss of Conservative council seats to Labour would look more likely to be realised.
Labour and the LDs combined won more councillors and councils in the 2019 local elections than the Tories despite the fact most seats up were in the Tory English shires. Labour London and Birmingham and Wales and SNP Scotland were not up.
That was how bad it was for the Tories, their worst local elections since 1995 so they have little further to fall this May
Tories won 3,564 councillors, control of 93 councils 30 more than Labour, and got 2,985,959 votes. You are spinning it as a nadir? Little further they can fall this time? a floor they would be hard pressed to fall below? No chance of a terrible night?
Which is exactly how Labour and Lib Dems and Farage would want the Tory’s to be spinning it, isn’t it, ahead of putting those 3,564 councillors, 93 councils, 2,985,959 votes on the line?
WTF are you doing?
I challenge you further on this. So go on, predict the shares from these locals, and we’ll see if you are right.
I’ll go with Lab 40 (no higher because Green will do well) Lib Dems 29 Con 17 (maybe lower if Farage/reform have good night)
My theory is mid term local election night never matches current national polls does it, because the voters know exactly what they need, to protest locally and kick a government. If any of those 2,985,959 Tory votes are disgruntled, there’s loads of options available to them.
Like you agree with me Tory’s currently average 27% in polls, and got 28% in 2019 elections - you expecting a government getting a share in mid term locals which largely matches or out performs what it is currently polling? projected national Con share of 27 or 28% come May? And ruling out fall to 18 or 19%?
Just look what that does to starting point of 3,564 councillors and control of 93 councils. 🧐
Lab 40 Cons 29 LDs 12
Given the seats up exclude Labour London, Wales and SNP Scotland you would expect the Tory NEV to be slightly higher than their current voteshare and the Labour share to be slightly lower.
RefUK won't be able to field more than a handful of candidates and the Greens will also get a few votes to split the anti Tory vote.
The Tories have never fallen below 25% in a local elections, even in 1995
That’s a photo - how do you know the car’s moving ?
There's a pattern of offending.
That's still not moving. You need a video or Tony walks.
I present to the court this Party Political Broadcast from 1997, in which Tony Blair gives a sequence of interviews in the back of his car while not wearing a seatbelt.
Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.
Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway
The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.
The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.
I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.
So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
Worth remembering that despite a poor showing in 2019, because the councils contested are mainly in strong Tory areas, they still won by far the most seats in 2019, 3564, and so they still have most to lose.
If Starmer was a leader with a better connection with the public then the potential for a massive loss of Conservative council seats to Labour would look more likely to be realised.
Labour and the LDs combined won more councillors and councils in the 2019 local elections than the Tories despite the fact most seats up were in the Tory English shires. Labour London and Birmingham and Wales and SNP Scotland were not up.
That was how bad it was for the Tories, their worst local elections since 1995 so they have little further to fall this May
Tories won 3,564 councillors, control of 93 councils 30 more than Labour, and got 2,985,959 votes. You are spinning it as a nadir? Little further they can fall this time? a floor they would be hard pressed to fall below? No chance of a terrible night?
Which is exactly how Labour and Lib Dems and Farage would want the Tory’s to be spinning it, isn’t it, ahead of putting those 3,564 councillors, 93 councils, 2,985,959 votes on the line?
WTF are you doing?
I challenge you further on this. So go on, predict the shares from these locals, and we’ll see if you are right.
I’ll go with Lab 40 (no higher because Green will do well) Lib Dems 29 Con 17 (maybe lower if Farage/reform have good night)
My theory is mid term local election night never matches current national polls does it, because the voters know exactly what they need, to protest locally and kick a government. If any of those 2,985,959 Tory votes are disgruntled, there’s loads of options available to them.
Like you agree with me Tory’s currently average 27% in polls, and got 28% in 2019 elections - you expecting a government getting a share in mid term locals which largely matches or out performs what it is currently polling? projected national Con share of 27 or 28% come May? And ruling out fall to 18 or 19%?
Just look what that does to starting point of 3,564 councillors and control of 93 councils. 🧐
Lab 40 Cons 29 LDs 12
Given the seats up exclude Labour London, Wales and SNP Scotland you would expect the Tory NEV to be slightly higher than their current voteshare and the Labour share to be slightly lower.
RefUK won't be able to field more than a handful of candidates and the Greens will also get a few votes to split the anti Tory vote.
The Tories have never fallen below 25% in a local elections, even in 1995
Con 29 Lib Dems 12? That’s a wacky prediction for mid term locals this May. You know I didn’t mean next GE but the locals?
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
What big advance has humanity studies ever given us? Please tell. Now do some humanities students do well and enhance the place yes....generally not through the humanities studies they did. You are a case in point....you studied humanites...your contributions to society however are not humanity based
What an ignorant and philistine statement? Where would our historians, archaeologists and philosophers come from if not for humanities? You don't just need to teach and research it either, plenty of museum curators, journalists, actors, authors and poets and senior civil servants studied humanities today.
As did a few PMs and top politicians, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown and George Osborne read History and Boris Johnson read classics and Andy Burnham read English. It probably made them more rounded than doing a social science degree like PPE or Politics.
The King read History too of course and the Princess of Wales read History of Art
Point of order: archeology is a science, surely?
Point of puzzlement: aren't you rather demolishing your argument with your last sentence?
It can be considered a humanities subject or a social science
"Archaeology or archeology is the scientific study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture."
"The science of archaeology (from Greek ἀρχαιολογία, archaiologia from ἀρχαῖος, arkhaios, "ancient" and -λογία, -logia, "-logy") grew out of the older multi-disciplinary study known as antiquarianism."
Line 6 'Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of humanities'
Archaeology in its practice is a science. Archaeology in its teaching is a humanities (or arts) course.
When I did archaeology at university back in the 80s only two establishments did a science degree in archaeology - the Institute of Archaeology in London, which was part of the University of London, and University College Cardiff. And both of those were more concerned with conservation than straight archaeology. Hence the reason I chose Cardiff.
One of the great failings of archaeology courses - certainly until quite recently, and from what I hear up to today - is that they don't teach practical archaeology. They teach ancient history, prehistory, stratigraphy and some conservation. But they don't, as a rule, teach people how to survey, how to lay out and run a site and how to actually dig holes (which is an art in itself). All this practical knowledge is expected to be gained by volunteering on digs during the holidays.
Geophysics is definitely science. And that's what tells them where to dig.
Hmm. No it doesn't. Geophys (or rather resistivity and magnetometry - there is no such thing as a 'geophys' tool) works in specific limited circumstances. Much of the time it is useless in spite of what you see on Time Team.
That’s a photo - how do you know the car’s moving ?
There's a pattern of offending.
That's still not moving. You need a video or Tony walks.
I present to the court this Party Political Broadcast from 1997, in which Tony Blair gives a sequence of interviews in the back of his car while not wearing a seatbelt.
Sunak gets into these scrapes because he is trying far, far too hard to be loved. He needs to stop it. He looks needy. It’s not going work.
They can’t possibly go into an election with him as leader 🫣
The abusive, sadistic and embarrassing result at May’s locals will finish him. But who will get the leadership? It could be Boris again. Maybe Wallace or Penny?
No. It could only be a coming together, not a fight.
Imagine a deal - Penny as PM, Wallace as Deputy, done with blessing of Boris and his Support. That makes this Truss and Rishi nonsense period, history and just a bad dream come the GE next year.
The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
You can level up, but doling out government money to regions already far too dependent on the state is the worst way to do it. If it worked, after a century of regional aid, Northern Ireland and North East England would be the richest regions of the country, and London and the South East the poorest, not the other way around.
Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.
Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway
The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.
The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.
I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.
So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
The 2019 locals were pretty amazing for the LDs - they more than doubled their number of councillors, ending the night on 1,351 (which wasn't that far behind Labour's 2,021).
So you are certainly correct that the LDs will struggle to have such a good night. (By contrast 2024 will probably be a very good year for the Yellow Peril.)
The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
You can level up, but doling out government money to regions already far too dependent on the state is the worst way to do it. If it worked, after a century of regional aid, Northern Ireland and North East England would be the richest regions of the country, and London and the South East the poorest, not the other way around.
“You can level up”
No you can’t level up. Levelling up is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, therefore not an honest or achievable policy platform.
You have Lady Thatcher in your avatar - would she have ever used such a divisive and populist phrase as Boris and his team invented with this “Levelling Up”? It’s got a touch of giving you the gold from the end of the rainbow about it, which is populist, but so so effective because it plays on localism: goodies for you at “their” expense. It’s exactly the sort of mindless damaging thing real conservatives steer clear of. Annual gerrymander day, as we had today, is pure Labour and Boris thinking, not proper Toryism.
Sunak gets into these scrapes because he is trying far, far too hard to be loved. He needs to stop it. He looks needy. It’s not going work.
They can’t possibly go into an election with him as leader 🫣
The abusive, sadistic and embarrassing result at May’s locals will finish him. But who will get the leadership? It could be Boris again. Maybe Wallace or Penny?
No. It could only be a coming together, not a fight.
Imagine a deal - Penny as PM, Wallace as Deputy, done with blessing of Boris and his Support. That makes this Truss and Rishi nonsense period, history and just a bad dream come the GE next year.
Change leaders again? Would be farce played as tragedy.
Sunak gets into these scrapes because he is trying far, far too hard to be loved. He needs to stop it. He looks needy. It’s not going work.
They can’t possibly go into an election with him as leader 🫣
The abusive, sadistic and embarrassing result at May’s locals will finish him. But who will get the leadership? It could be Boris again. Maybe Wallace or Penny?
No. It could only be a coming together, not a fight.
Imagine a deal - Penny as PM, Wallace as Deputy, done with blessing of Boris and his Support. That makes this Truss and Rishi nonsense period, history and just a bad dream come the GE next year.
They won't be that bad, Rishi might even get more than May's 28% in May 2019.
Wallace won't run as he said before, Mordaunt is too Woke for the MPs and members.
Boris is the only viable alternative but Tory MPs won't even consider that except as a last resort just before the next general election
Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.
Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway
The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.
The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.
I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.
So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
The 2019 locals were pretty amazing for the LDs - they more than doubled their number of councillors, ending the night on 1,351 (which wasn't that far behind Labour's 2,021).
So you are certainly correct that the LDs will struggle to have such a good night. (By contrast 2024 will probably be a very good year for the Yellow Peril.)
It’s not all about 2019 though. I’m making an argument, we can’t just look at equivalent election Xx years ago, but need to consider trend from more recent years too. Last year the Lib Dems ripped up the Blue Wall, how does this year defy that current form book in locals, with libdems losing ground on 2019 result? Surely form book is telling us Lib Dems exceed that 19% from 2019 at the Tories expense?
The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
You can level up, but doling out government money to regions already far too dependent on the state is the worst way to do it. If it worked, after a century of regional aid, Northern Ireland and North East England would be the richest regions of the country, and London and the South East the poorest, not the other way around.
“You can level up”
No you can’t level up. Levelling up is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, therefore not an honest or achievable policy platform.
You have Lady Thatcher in your avatar - would she have ever used such a divisive and populist phrase as Boris and his team invented with this “Levelling Up”? It’s got a touch of giving you the gold from the end of the rainbow about it, which is populist, but so so effective because it plays on localism: goodies for you at “their” expense. It’s exactly the sort of mindless damaging thing real conservatives steer clear of. Annual gerrymander day, as we had today, is pure Labour and Boris thinking, not proper Toryism.
It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US.
It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.
So, there is a point to levelling up. It’s just that the Tories have flunked it, like they’ve flunked everything else.
Sunak gets into these scrapes because he is trying far, far too hard to be loved. He needs to stop it. He looks needy. It’s not going work.
They can’t possibly go into an election with him as leader 🫣
The abusive, sadistic and embarrassing result at May’s locals will finish him. But who will get the leadership? It could be Boris again. Maybe Wallace or Penny?
No. It could only be a coming together, not a fight.
Imagine a deal - Penny as PM, Wallace as Deputy, done with blessing of Boris and his Support. That makes this Truss and Rishi nonsense period, history and just a bad dream come the GE next year.
Change leaders again? Would be farce played as tragedy.
Just because you want them to keep Rishi for the general election. The Tories can’t. They really can’t.
Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.
Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway
The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.
The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.
I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.
So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
The 2019 locals were pretty amazing for the LDs - they more than doubled their number of councillors, ending the night on 1,351 (which wasn't that far behind Labour's 2,021).
So you are certainly correct that the LDs will struggle to have such a good night. (By contrast 2024 will probably be a very good year for the Yellow Peril.)
It’s not all about 2019 though. I’m making an argument, we can’t just look at equivalent election Xx years ago, but need to consider trend from more recent years too. Last year the Lib Dems ripped up the Blue Wall, how does this year defy that current form book in locals, with libdems losing ground on 2019 result? Surely form book is telling us Lib Dems exceed that 19% from 2019 at the Tories expense?
No as Rishi is more popular in the Blue Wall than Boris, even if less popular than Boris in the Red Wall
Sunak gets into these scrapes because he is trying far, far too hard to be loved. He needs to stop it. He looks needy. It’s not going work.
They can’t possibly go into an election with him as leader 🫣
The abusive, sadistic and embarrassing result at May’s locals will finish him. But who will get the leadership? It could be Boris again. Maybe Wallace or Penny?
No. It could only be a coming together, not a fight.
Imagine a deal - Penny as PM, Wallace as Deputy, done with blessing of Boris and his Support. That makes this Truss and Rishi nonsense period, history and just a bad dream come the GE next year.
They won't be that bad, Rishi might even get more than May's 28% in May 2019.
Wallace won't run as he said before, Mordaunt is too Woke for the MPs and members.
Boris is the only viable alternative but Tory MPs won't even consider that except as a last resort just before the next general election
“They won't be that bad, Rishi might even get more than May's 28% in May 2019.”
I don’t understand the reasoning.
To me Tories around the 20% and Lib Dems in 20%+ is nailed on.
28, 28, 19 in 2019, and 35, 30, 19 last year, Conservatives are currently thought of as a basket case of a party and a government, disliked more this year than in both 2019 and 2022 - how do the Tories avoid being dismantled by Lib Dems and Labour everywhere in just 104 days time?
Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.
Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway
The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.
The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.
I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.
So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
The 2019 locals were pretty amazing for the LDs - they more than doubled their number of councillors, ending the night on 1,351 (which wasn't that far behind Labour's 2,021).
So you are certainly correct that the LDs will struggle to have such a good night. (By contrast 2024 will probably be a very good year for the Yellow Peril.)
It’s not all about 2019 though. I’m making an argument, we can’t just look at equivalent election Xx years ago, but need to consider trend from more recent years too. Last year the Lib Dems ripped up the Blue Wall, how does this year defy that current form book in locals, with libdems losing ground on 2019 result? Surely form book is telling us Lib Dems exceed that 19% from 2019 at the Tories expense?
No as Rishi is more popular in the Blue Wall than Boris, even if less popular than Boris in the Red Wall
Nonsense. it’s exactly because Sunak is known as such an out of touch ridiculous PM when compared to Boris, why the Tories take such a battering come May. Your mistake is clear now - comparing a seasoned PMs ratings at his nadir against a hopeless newb who can never achieve the heights Boris was capable of - a snapshot a few months in versus a snapshot 3 years in? That’s what you are doing isn’t it?
That actual opposite will happen in May this year than your psephology - like last year Labour will find bits of midlands and North Red Wall still slow to come to them, whilst the Blue Wall will fall to LLG like domino’s.
Sunak gets into these scrapes because he is trying far, far too hard to be loved. He needs to stop it. He looks needy. It’s not going work.
They can’t possibly go into an election with him as leader 🫣
The abusive, sadistic and embarrassing result at May’s locals will finish him. But who will get the leadership? It could be Boris again. Maybe Wallace or Penny?
No. It could only be a coming together, not a fight.
Imagine a deal - Penny as PM, Wallace as Deputy, done with blessing of Boris and his Support. That makes this Truss and Rishi nonsense period, history and just a bad dream come the GE next year.
It's probably Penny's turn.
I'm not sure she could be a lot worse. I'd like to see her bring in a genuinely broad-ranging Cabinet for the first time since Major. Even Rishi should get a job if he wants one, though not one of the main ones.
I think Wallace is a red herring. Doesn't want it. There's something going on there that we don't know about, and that's fine, let him be.
Sunak tribulations reminds me of the dying days of Gordon Brown, he would try some PR photoshoot and there was always something picked up that had gone wrong or just looked weird, and then the grid was out the window as the media focus would be on that, not whatever he was there to promote. Its a combination of poor team but also when the media decide times up, they are always on the look out for whatever it is.
In fact, no not Gordon Brown, more Ed Miliband....he had so many PR gaffes (not just the bacon sandwich). Remember the two kitchens disaster, the photo of the home help cleaning his car, and of course the Ed stone. The media decided that they were going highlight every one of them......
The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
You can level up, but doling out government money to regions already far too dependent on the state is the worst way to do it. If it worked, after a century of regional aid, Northern Ireland and North East England would be the richest regions of the country, and London and the South East the poorest, not the other way around.
“You can level up”
No you can’t level up. Levelling up is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, therefore not an honest or achievable policy platform.
You have Lady Thatcher in your avatar - would she have ever used such a divisive and populist phrase as Boris and his team invented with this “Levelling Up”? It’s got a touch of giving you the gold from the end of the rainbow about it, which is populist, but so so effective because it plays on localism: goodies for you at “their” expense. It’s exactly the sort of mindless damaging thing real conservatives steer clear of. Annual gerrymander day, as we had today, is pure Labour and Boris thinking, not proper Toryism.
It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US.
It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.
So, there is a point to levelling up. It’s just that the Tories have flunked it, like they’ve flunked everything else.
“It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US. It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.”
That’s a interesting position. the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions CAN be levelled up, what is preventing this are conscious decisions made in Westminster - and government after government flunk the challenge.
But nope - it’s wrong. You are up against the natural order of things. And with that thinking you are peddling quite dangerous garbage.
I’ve tried to put it more politely that you are plain wrong, and it’s actually dangerous you are spreading thinking like that. But it can’t be put more politely. Your inaccurate argument is actually little different than the reason the SNP exist. Street riots happen. Civil Wars are fought. Etc.
The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
You can level up, but doling out government money to regions already far too dependent on the state is the worst way to do it. If it worked, after a century of regional aid, Northern Ireland and North East England would be the richest regions of the country, and London and the South East the poorest, not the other way around.
“You can level up”
No you can’t level up. Levelling up is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, therefore not an honest or achievable policy platform.
You have Lady Thatcher in your avatar - would she have ever used such a divisive and populist phrase as Boris and his team invented with this “Levelling Up”? It’s got a touch of giving you the gold from the end of the rainbow about it, which is populist, but so so effective because it plays on localism: goodies for you at “their” expense. It’s exactly the sort of mindless damaging thing real conservatives steer clear of. Annual gerrymander day, as we had today, is pure Labour and Boris thinking, not proper Toryism.
It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US.
It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.
So, there is a point to levelling up. It’s just that the Tories have flunked it, like they’ve flunked everything else.
“It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US. It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.”
That’s a interesting position. the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions CAN be levelled up, what is preventing this are conscious decisions made in Westminster - and government after government flunk the challenge.
But nope - it’s wrong. You are up against the natural order of things. And with that thinking you are peddling quite dangerous garbage.
I’ve tried to put it more politely that you are plain wrong, and it’s actually dangerous you are spreading thinking like that. But it can’t be put more politely. Your inaccurate argument is actually little different than the reason the SNP exist. Street riots happen. Civil Wars are fought. Etc.
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
You can level up, but doling out government money to regions already far too dependent on the state is the worst way to do it. If it worked, after a century of regional aid, Northern Ireland and North East England would be the richest regions of the country, and London and the South East the poorest, not the other way around.
“You can level up”
No you can’t level up. Levelling up is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, therefore not an honest or achievable policy platform.
You have Lady Thatcher in your avatar - would she have ever used such a divisive and populist phrase as Boris and his team invented with this “Levelling Up”? It’s got a touch of giving you the gold from the end of the rainbow about it, which is populist, but so so effective because it plays on localism: goodies for you at “their” expense. It’s exactly the sort of mindless damaging thing real conservatives steer clear of. Annual gerrymander day, as we had today, is pure Labour and Boris thinking, not proper Toryism.
It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US.
It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.
So, there is a point to levelling up. It’s just that the Tories have flunked it, like they’ve flunked everything else.
“It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US. It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.”
That’s a interesting position. the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions CAN be levelled up, what is preventing this are conscious decisions made in Westminster - and government after government flunk the challenge.
But nope - it’s wrong. You are up against the natural order of things. And with that thinking you are peddling quite dangerous garbage.
I’ve tried to put it more politely that you are plain wrong, and it’s actually dangerous you are spreading thinking like that. But it can’t be put more politely. Your inaccurate argument is actually little different than the reason the SNP exist. Street riots happen. Civil Wars are fought. Etc.
Ancient mismatch? Scale possibly, but not wealth. Birmingham was, per capita, richer than London up to the late 1960s.
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
Mostly those with personal protection wear them. Prince Philip did whatever he wanted. The late queen did too, mostly - there was one time she wore one the day after she'd been filmed not wearing one, after her husband caused an accident in which it was lucky he didn't kill someone.
Since Sunak has apologised, it's a bit of a non-story.
The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
You can level up, but doling out government money to regions already far too dependent on the state is the worst way to do it. If it worked, after a century of regional aid, Northern Ireland and North East England would be the richest regions of the country, and London and the South East the poorest, not the other way around.
“You can level up”
No you can’t level up. Levelling up is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, therefore not an honest or achievable policy platform.
You have Lady Thatcher in your avatar - would she have ever used such a divisive and populist phrase as Boris and his team invented with this “Levelling Up”? It’s got a touch of giving you the gold from the end of the rainbow about it, which is populist, but so so effective because it plays on localism: goodies for you at “their” expense. It’s exactly the sort of mindless damaging thing real conservatives steer clear of. Annual gerrymander day, as we had today, is pure Labour and Boris thinking, not proper Toryism.
It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US.
It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.
So, there is a point to levelling up. It’s just that the Tories have flunked it, like they’ve flunked everything else.
“It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US. It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.”
That’s a interesting position. the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions CAN be levelled up, what is preventing this are conscious decisions made in Westminster - and government after government flunk the challenge.
But nope - it’s wrong. You are up against the natural order of things. And with that thinking you are peddling quite dangerous garbage.
I’ve tried to put it more politely that you are plain wrong, and it’s actually dangerous you are spreading thinking like that. But it can’t be put more politely. Your inaccurate argument is actually little different than the reason the SNP exist. Street riots happen. Civil Wars are fought. Etc.
Ancient mismatch? Scale possibly, but not wealth. Birmingham was, per capita, richer than London up to the late 1960s.
London would have been wealthier for most of history. You are referring to the industrial blip.
The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
You can level up, but doling out government money to regions already far too dependent on the state is the worst way to do it. If it worked, after a century of regional aid, Northern Ireland and North East England would be the richest regions of the country, and London and the South East the poorest, not the other way around.
“You can level up”
No you can’t level up. Levelling up is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, therefore not an honest or achievable policy platform.
You have Lady Thatcher in your avatar - would she have ever used such a divisive and populist phrase as Boris and his team invented with this “Levelling Up”? It’s got a touch of giving you the gold from the end of the rainbow about it, which is populist, but so so effective because it plays on localism: goodies for you at “their” expense. It’s exactly the sort of mindless damaging thing real conservatives steer clear of. Annual gerrymander day, as we had today, is pure Labour and Boris thinking, not proper Toryism.
It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US.
It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.
So, there is a point to levelling up. It’s just that the Tories have flunked it, like they’ve flunked everything else.
“It is not actually the natural order of things that Birmingham, Manchester etc have such profoundly bad productivity numbers compared with peer cities in Europe and the US. It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.”
That’s a interesting position. the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions CAN be levelled up, what is preventing this are conscious decisions made in Westminster - and government after government flunk the challenge.
But nope - it’s wrong. You are up against the natural order of things. And with that thinking you are peddling quite dangerous garbage.
I’ve tried to put it more politely that you are plain wrong, and it’s actually dangerous you are spreading thinking like that. But it can’t be put more politely. Your inaccurate argument is actually little different than the reason the SNP exist. Street riots happen. Civil Wars are fought. Etc.
Ancient mismatch? Scale possibly, but not wealth. Birmingham was, per capita, richer than London up to the late 1960s.
London would have been wealthier for most of history. You are referring to the industrial blip.
My point is that Birmingham and Manchester need to, and can, “level up” with OECD peers. London is a red herring.
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
Mostly those with personal protection wear them. Prince Philip did whatever he wanted. The late queen did too, mostly - there was one time she wore one the day after she'd been filmed not wearing one, after her husband caused an accident in which it was lucky he didn't kill someone.
Since Sunak has apologised, it's a bit of a non-story.
Though it HAS alerted some PBers to recent changes in law circa 1993? And put an end to their scofflawry!
Thread on where the money is going in Sunak’s constituency:
Predictably I'm going to weigh in on this, given that I represent large parts of Catterick on North Yorkshire County Council - which is where this £19M is being spent.
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
Since the death of Diana, I would be surprised if they didn't wear a seat belt.
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
.@ScotSecofState has told us he is unable to attend our meeting on Tuesday.
He has suggested that @KemiBadenoch, Minister for Women and Equalities, is the appropriate Minister to invite, which we have now done: parliament.scot/chamber-and-co…
The unwittingly ironic name of the Women and Equalities department is the perfect example of how some who claim to be in favour of equality view the world through rather tinted glasses.
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
Pretty sure that used to be the case. The rules will likely be different when in a government car driven in a police-led convoy, which will be the case most of the time for the PM.
A better line of enquiry for opponents, would be to ask if he was using government resources to make a political video.
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The unwittingly ironic name of the Women and Equalities department is the perfect example of how some who claim to be in favour of equality view the world through rather tinted glasses.
There was a good story the other day, that Facebook’s “Trust and Safety Board” have told the company to rescind their ban on showing women’s nipples.
Their reasoning though, is nothing to do with the campaign by feminsist groups to ‘free the nipple’, but because the academic trust and safety board find themselves unable to define ‘woman’. The board said Meta's policy was based on a “binary view of gender and a distinction between male and female bodies”, meaning the rules were “unclear” on how they applied to transgender and non-binary people.
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
I think that you are right about the attitude the politicians should take, and I’m right about the attitude the police should take.
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
Pretty sure that used to be the case. The rules will likely be different when in a government car driven in a police-led convoy, which will be the case most of the time for the PM.
A better line of enquiry for opponents, would be to ask if he was using government resources to make a political video.
In the context of the 'levelling up' fund, that's a minor issue.
Interesting thread by former tank brigade commander.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1616220288001396737 My aim in this thread is not to argue whether they should be provided. I think it is obvious they should. If Russia can deploy T90s or even its new T-14s (according to British Intelligence), why are we denying similar capabilities to #Ukraine?...
...We need to stop looking for excuses like ‘this is a complex system’. I don’t recall these arguments when M1 tanks went to Iraq, or Egypt. And as someone who commanded a brigade with M1 tanks, if the Australian Army with its very light logistic footprint (and lack of tank strategic sustainment for the first decade in service) can do it, the Ukrainians definitely can!
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
I think that you are right about the attitude the politicians should take, and I’m right about the attitude the police should take.
Are seatbelts less serious than car theft? I’m not sure. I know where you are coming from. Crime is a big problem, hugely damaging and apparently out of control under this government. However, seatbelts save many lives. The law is there for a reason, like speed limits. Take the fine. Eat humble pie. Move on.
The unwittingly ironic name of the Women and Equalities department is the perfect example of how some who claim to be in favour of equality view the world through rather tinted glasses.
There was a good story the other day, that Facebook’s “Trust and Safety Board” have told the company to rescind their ban on showing women’s nipples.
Their reasoning though, is nothing to do with the campaign by feminsist groups to ‘free the nipple’, but because the academic trust and safety board find themselves unable to define ‘woman’. The board said Meta's policy was based on a “binary view of gender and a distinction between male and female bodies”, meaning the rules were “unclear” on how they applied to transgender and non-binary people.
Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.
What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.
I don't think it needs much investigation.
Well, that was my point. He's bang to rights - worse than being caught on CCTV or by a speed camera. It's like a burglar posting a video of themselves burgling. But I still wouldn't bother fining him. It's the incompetence of his operation that's striking.
Why not fine him? Or do you think it should be one law for him and another for the rest of us?
If somebody sent a film to the cops showing me in the back seat of a moving car sans belt, would I be issued with a fine?
If so, he should be. If not, he shouldn't. That would seem fair to me. Otherwise he's getting undue leniency or harshness because of who he is.
I read somewhere recently that more traffic offences are being prosecuted because of the increase in dashcam footage being submitted to the police.
So, yes, does sound like police action is to be expected.
That kind of thing only works if you have the balancing article to go with it.
Something from the architectural press which argues, using faux-socio-political arguments, that Lancing College should have been completely torn down and rebuilt in rough finished concrete.
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
I think that you are right about the attitude the politicians should take, and I’m right about the attitude the police should take.
Are seatbelts less serious than car theft? I’m not sure. I know where you are coming from. Crime is a big problem, hugely damaging and apparently out of control under this government. However, seatbelts save many lives. The law is there for a reason, like speed limits. Take the fine. Eat humble pie. Move on.
“Are seatbelts less serious than car theft?”
Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.
One is a very minor offence, dealt with by means of a £30 non-endorsable fixed penalty. The other is a permanent deprivation of someone’s often expensive property, that can and does result in a term of imprisonment. In aggravated cases, it can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
Interesting thread by former tank brigade commander.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1616220288001396737 My aim in this thread is not to argue whether they should be provided. I think it is obvious they should. If Russia can deploy T90s or even its new T-14s (according to British Intelligence), why are we denying similar capabilities to #Ukraine?...
...We need to stop looking for excuses like ‘this is a complex system’. I don’t recall these arguments when M1 tanks went to Iraq, or Egypt. And as someone who commanded a brigade with M1 tanks, if the Australian Army with its very light logistic footprint (and lack of tank strategic sustainment for the first decade in service) can do it, the Ukrainians definitely can!
Interesting that he suggests sending either the Leopard or the Abrams, but not both, and presumably using the British Challengers as display pieces.
Given the mix of infantry fighting vehicles already pledged I don't think we're at a point of providing a single system to satisfy all of Ukraine's needs.
I decided to take this bit in the third paragraph as my "executive summary": ... I think it’s quite clear that systems like ChatGPT and Lamda are not only “not there yet”, but are essentially barking up the wrong tree. (Or, to stretch the metaphor a bit, maybe it’s more like they’re barking up a tree in the wrong forest, which is maybe on the wrong continent entirely…)
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
I think that you are right about the attitude the politicians should take, and I’m right about the attitude the police should take.
Are seatbelts less serious than car theft? I’m not sure. I know where you are coming from. Crime is a big problem, hugely damaging and apparently out of control under this government. However, seatbelts save many lives. The law is there for a reason, like speed limits. Take the fine. Eat humble pie. Move on.
“Are seatbelts less serious than car theft?”
Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.
One is a very minor offence, dealt with by means of a £30 non-endorsable fixed penalty. The other is a permanent deprivation of someone’s often expensive property, that can and does result in a term of imprisonment. In aggravated cases, it can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
I think I'm right in saying that if someone causes a car accident and is done for death by dangerous driving, if the person that died wasn't wearing a seatbelt (or was killed because someone else in the car wasn't wearing a seatbelt), that doesn't make any difference to the sentence.
And that I think underlines just how small a crime not wearing a seatbelt is.
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
I think that you are right about the attitude the politicians should take, and I’m right about the attitude the police should take.
Are seatbelts less serious than car theft? I’m not sure. I know where you are coming from. Crime is a big problem, hugely damaging and apparently out of control under this government. However, seatbelts save many lives. The law is there for a reason, like speed limits. Take the fine. Eat humble pie. Move on.
“Are seatbelts less serious than car theft?”
Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.
One is a very minor offence, dealt with by means of a £30 non-endorsable fixed penalty. The other is a permanent deprivation of someone’s often expensive property, that can and does result in a term of imprisonment. In aggravated cases, it can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
A feature of the last decade or so is the emergence of a pathological obsession with safety, and a shift in thinking towards the notion that government should protect people from all kinds of harm, such that were previously thought to be solely within the remit of personal responsibility. It is leading to the embrace of elements of totalitarianism and socialism.
Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread
"CorrectHorseBattery3 said: Culture wars are killing the Tories.
They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"
Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.
So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?
And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if anything?"
Two reasons: 1. The SNP are on the opposite side of the culture war. The Tories are trying to demonise, divide and belittle. The SNP are trying to do the opposite 2. If you support the SNP you almost certainly support the idea of Scotland doing its own thing even if not all the way to independence. So Scottish elected ministers passing laws is precisely the kind of thing you support even if not that specific law. Your disapproving alternative is to vote for a unionist party and give up on autonomy.
Thread on where the money is going in Sunak’s constituency:
Predictably I'm going to weigh in on this, given that I represent large parts of Catterick on North Yorkshire County Council - which is where this £19M is being spent.
Shame that one of project is to improve Coronation Park which is now only half the size it was because about 3 years ago they sold the land to Aldi to build a supermarket on it.
Thread on where the money is going in Sunak’s constituency:
Predictably I'm going to weigh in on this, given that I represent large parts of Catterick on North Yorkshire County Council - which is where this £19M is being spent.
When I heard the money had gone to Catterick Garrison I knew why - its a hovel. Sunak was berated for being filmed somewhere in the leafy south saying our local hovels deserve money and he's right - they do.
Money only going to nice areas is a long-standing problem. It takes vision and serious investment to pick an area up, we don't like to invest in this country because its communistic, so we leave them to rot for decades.
The political problem is that the Tories triumphed levelling up as the big fandango. After decades of Labour MPs and councils, finally someone Gets It and the cash will arrive! Except that as we see, it largely isn't. I loved the description of a "Hunger Games style competition" between bidding towns / communities because that is what it has looked like.
And now we see very stark choices being made - very little actual cash arriving in the deprived north, and what there is going directly into swing blue places that often don't need it such as Yarm.
I'm sure the idea was "bribe red wall morons with cash so they keep voting for us". Pity that ship has already sailed. As sadly has any hope of rescuing these places from the grim hell they have decayed into.
Sunak tribulations reminds me of the dying days of Gordon Brown, he would try some PR photoshoot and there was always something picked up that had gone wrong or just looked weird, and then the grid was out the window as the media focus would be on that, not whatever he was there to promote. Its a combination of poor team but also when the media decide times up, they are always on the look out for whatever it is.
In fact, no not Gordon Brown, more Ed Miliband....he had so many photoshoot gaffes (not just the bacon sandwich) and the media decided that they were going highlight every one of them......"at least I tried"...
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
I know someone who survived a serious crash (beltless) by being thrown clear of the wreck. Now never wears one. Switzerland. Don't know if it's the law there or not. I would imagine statistically it's mostly the other way around.
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
I think that you are right about the attitude the politicians should take, and I’m right about the attitude the police should take.
Are seatbelts less serious than car theft? I’m not sure. I know where you are coming from. Crime is a big problem, hugely damaging and apparently out of control under this government. However, seatbelts save many lives. The law is there for a reason, like speed limits. Take the fine. Eat humble pie. Move on.
“Are seatbelts less serious than car theft?”
Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.
One is a very minor offence, dealt with by means of a £30 non-endorsable fixed penalty. The other is a permanent deprivation of someone’s often expensive property, that can and does result in a term of imprisonment. In aggravated cases, it can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
I think I'm right in saying that if someone causes a car accident and is done for death by dangerous driving, if the person that died wasn't wearing a seatbelt (or was killed because someone else in the car wasn't wearing a seatbelt), that doesn't make any difference to the sentence.
And that I think underlines just how small a crime not wearing a seatbelt is.
Famously of course it’s probably what did for Princess Di in 1997.
Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread
"CorrectHorseBattery3 said: Culture wars are killing the Tories.
They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"
Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.
So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?
And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if anything?"
Two reasons: 1. The SNP are on the opposite side of the culture war. The Tories are trying to demonise, divide and belittle. The SNP are trying to do the opposite
I have to say I think that is a very optimistic analysis of the SNP. Their entire raison d’etre is to divide, their tactics frequently include demonisation and they invariably belittle people who point out flaws in their arguments. Just look at their behaviour towards Rowling.
I deleted your second point because I think that’s the real reason they don’t suffer.
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
I think that you are right about the attitude the politicians should take, and I’m right about the attitude the police should take.
Are seatbelts less serious than car theft? I’m not sure. I know where you are coming from. Crime is a big problem, hugely damaging and apparently out of control under this government. However, seatbelts save many lives. The law is there for a reason, like speed limits. Take the fine. Eat humble pie. Move on.
“Are seatbelts less serious than car theft?”
Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.
One is a very minor offence, dealt with by means of a £30 non-endorsable fixed penalty. The other is a permanent deprivation of someone’s often expensive property, that can and does result in a term of imprisonment. In aggravated cases, it can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
A feature of the last decade or so is the emergence of a pathological obsession with safety, and a shift in thinking towards the notion that government should protect people from all kinds of harm, such that were previously thought to be solely within the remit of personal responsibility. It is leading to the embrace of elements of totalitarianism and socialism.
Eh? Putting on a seat belt? Legislation brought in by Tories 30 years ago. Really? I suspect most people don’t mind. Not a huge loss of freedom. Unless you really want to dive through a windscreen. I guess your against the totalitarianism associated with forcing people to drive on the left.
Sunak tribulations reminds me of the dying days of Gordon Brown, he would try some PR photoshoot and there was always something picked up that had gone wrong or just looked weird, and then the grid was out the window as the media focus would be on that, not whatever he was there to promote. Its a combination of poor team but also when the media decide times up, they are always on the look out for whatever it is.
In fact, no not Gordon Brown, more Ed Miliband....he had so many photoshoot gaffes (not just the bacon sandwich) and the media decided that they were going highlight every one of them......"at least I tried"...
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
I know someone who survived a serious crash (beltless) by being thrown clear of the wreck. Now never wears one. Switzerland. Don't know if it's the law there or not. I would imagine statistically it's mostly the other way around.
It’s worth pointing out that you can kill somebody in the front seat as well if you’re not wearing a seatbelt and thrown forward in a crash.
Put it this way, anyone who has a seatbelt available and doesn’t wear one is a muppet. Law or no law, it’s simple common sense.
Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread
"CorrectHorseBattery3 said: Culture wars are killing the Tories.
They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"
Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.
So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?
And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if anything?"
Two reasons: 1. The SNP are on the opposite side of the culture war. The Tories are trying to demonise, divide and belittle. The SNP are trying to do the opposite 2. If you support the SNP you almost certainly support the idea of Scotland doing its own thing even if not all the way to independence. So Scottish elected ministers passing laws is precisely the kind of thing you support even if not that specific law. Your disapproving alternative is to vote for a unionist party and give up on autonomy.
Do you agree that the Tories' abysmal polls are due to their stance on trans issues then? 'It's a view'.
And now we see very stark choices being made - very little actual cash arriving in the deprived north, and what there is going directly into swing blue places that often don't need it such as Yarm.
I'm sure the idea was "bribe red wall morons with cash so they keep voting for us". Pity that ship has already sailed. As sadly has any hope of rescuing these places from the grim hell they have decayed into.
Rather than a moment of triumph, the announcement this week of the second round of cash from the levelling-up fund, worth £2.1 billion from a pot of £4.8 billion, has led to Sunak’s worst fracas with his MPs to date. With 550 requests for funding and only 111 winners, Tories who failed in their bids have seen red, with the prime minister accused of prioritising the southeast over the northeast. A minister describes the party as “steaming”. “It’s No 10’s first real misstep on party management,” says a former minister. As MPs received tip-offs on the fate of their bids, there were angry scenes in the Commons, with ministers confronted by MPs who had lost out.
While some of the more divisive allocations — such as funds for cabinet ministers’ seats, including Sunak’s — could have been avoided, much of this is down to Johnson. The failure of previous governments to define levelling up means people have bid, in the words of one MP, for “absolutely everything”. Successful bids range from funding for Malvern theatres to new cycling and walking infrastructure in Camden, north London. “I can’t speak for Boris but it’s not what I imagine he meant when he spoke in 2019,” says one MP from that intake.
Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread
"CorrectHorseBattery3 said: Culture wars are killing the Tories.
They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"
Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.
So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?
And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if anything?"
Two reasons: 1. The SNP are on the opposite side of the culture war. The Tories are trying to demonise, divide and belittle. The SNP are trying to do the opposite 2. If you support the SNP you almost certainly support the idea of Scotland doing its own thing even if not all the way to independence. So Scottish elected ministers passing laws is precisely the kind of thing you support even if not that specific law. Your disapproving alternative is to vote for a unionist party and give up on autonomy.
There are problems and problems and one can't ignore some in favour of others all the time. And trans rights are important for many people, particularly those who are young and therefore tend much more to vote SNP and SG and Slab and SL - one mustn't make the mistake of thinking this is a SNP thing: it was and remains a cross party matter, as illustrated by Mrs May's proposals a few years back. Indeed, the [edit] development of the current legislation formally began 6 years ago before the current Tory culture offensive began, as again illustrated by Mrs May's proposals.
Did you two see this report yesterday? Mr Jack claiming that trans issues had absolutely nothing, no sir, to do with his veto decision.
In Leeds for work today. Drove because the train was £100 for a return ticket. Dogshit.
C’est la vie
There are a number of political decisions where an Impassionate algorithm could almost certainly do a better job than real humans, and one category is capital investment.
It seems like an absolute no brainer that it would pay off hugely to build way more rail infrastructure across the country, and subsidise if if necessary. The most obvious candidate being NPR. It would translate straight into economic gains as countless examples across Europe show. Same with funding huge increases in thermal insulation and energy efficiency, and solar installations on roofs. Immediate payback in reduced energy costs. Plenty of others too.
The human pattern is that they always seem a bit too expensive to do now, or the payoff is too long, then in a decade’s time everyone deeply regrets missing the opportunity, but argues it’s now twice as expensive. Then a decade later etc.
Sunak tribulations reminds me of the dying days of Gordon Brown, he would try some PR photoshoot and there was always something picked up that had gone wrong or just looked weird, and then the grid was out the window as the media focus would be on that, not whatever he was there to promote. Its a combination of poor team but also when the media decide times up, they are always on the look out for whatever it is.
In fact, no not Gordon Brown, more Ed Miliband....he had so many photoshoot gaffes (not just the bacon sandwich) and the media decided that they were going highlight every one of them......"at least I tried"...
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
I know someone who survived a serious crash (beltless) by being thrown clear of the wreck. Now never wears one. Switzerland. Don't know if it's the law there or not. I would imagine statistically it's mostly the other way around.
It’s worth pointing out that you can kill somebody in the front seat as well if you’re not wearing a seatbelt and thrown forward in a crash.
Put it this way, anyone who has a seatbelt available and doesn’t wear one is a muppet. Law or no law, it’s simple common sense.
If you'd survived a crash by not wearing a seatbelt, you might feel differently. Or not, who knows.
I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
Really? Since about 30 years ago!
Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
Unbelted children are the responsibility of the car’s driver. Unbelted adults are their own responsibility - in any seat of the car which has a belt fitted.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
You’re misjudging this. As we saw with party gate, politicians can’t take the “it’s only a little law” “one law for you, another for us” approach. You take the fine and move on. If anything, you swing the other way and take ownership of the whole thing and say this reminds us that seatbelts save lives.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
I think that you are right about the attitude the politicians should take, and I’m right about the attitude the police should take.
Are seatbelts less serious than car theft? I’m not sure. I know where you are coming from. Crime is a big problem, hugely damaging and apparently out of control under this government. However, seatbelts save many lives. The law is there for a reason, like speed limits. Take the fine. Eat humble pie. Move on.
“Are seatbelts less serious than car theft?”
Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.
One is a very minor offence, dealt with by means of a £30 non-endorsable fixed penalty. The other is a permanent deprivation of someone’s often expensive property, that can and does result in a term of imprisonment. In aggravated cases, it can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
I think I'm right in saying that if someone causes a car accident and is done for death by dangerous driving, if the person that died wasn't wearing a seatbelt (or was killed because someone else in the car wasn't wearing a seatbelt), that doesn't make any difference to the sentence.
And that I think underlines just how small a crime not wearing a seatbelt is.
Famously of course it’s probably what did for Princess Di in 1997.
Also Jochen Rindt. (Or at least, not wearing it correctly.)
Sunak tribulations reminds me of the dying days of Gordon Brown, he would try some PR photoshoot and there was always something picked up that had gone wrong or just looked weird, and then the grid was out the window as the media focus would be on that, not whatever he was there to promote. Its a combination of poor team but also when the media decide times up, they are always on the look out for whatever it is.
In fact, no not Gordon Brown, more Ed Miliband....he had so many photoshoot gaffes (not just the bacon sandwich) and the media decided that they were going highlight every one of them......"at least I tried"...
I am not known for defending Tories but I believe that Senior politicians, VIPs etc are instructed by their protection detail NOT to wear seat belts. Has anyone got a video of Chas or Betty arriving at an event by car?
I know someone who survived a serious crash (beltless) by being thrown clear of the wreck. Now never wears one. Switzerland. Don't know if it's the law there or not. I would imagine statistically it's mostly the other way around.
It’s worth pointing out that you can kill somebody in the front seat as well if you’re not wearing a seatbelt and thrown forward in a crash.
Put it this way, anyone who has a seatbelt available and doesn’t wear one is a muppet. Law or no law, it’s simple common sense.
Some on the right appear to have gone a bit funny. Seatbelts is a strange ditch for libertarians to die in.
Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread
"CorrectHorseBattery3 said: Culture wars are killing the Tories.
They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"
Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.
So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?
And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if anything?"
Two reasons: 1. The SNP are on the opposite side of the culture war. The Tories are trying to demonise, divide and belittle. The SNP are trying to do the opposite 2. If you support the SNP you almost certainly support the idea of Scotland doing its own thing even if not all the way to independence. So Scottish elected ministers passing laws is precisely the kind of thing you support even if not that specific law. Your disapproving alternative is to vote for a unionist party and give up on autonomy.
There are problems and problems and one can't ignore some in favour of others all the time. And trans rights are important for many people, particularly those who are young and therefore tend much more to vote SNP and SG and Slab and SL - one mustn't make the mistake of thinking this is a SNP thing: it was and remains a cross party matter, as illustrated by Mrs May's proposals a few years back. Indeed, the [edit] development of the current legislation formally began 6 years ago before the current Tory culture offensive began, as again illustrated by Mrs May's proposals.
Did you two see this report yesterday? Mr Jack claiming that trans issues had absolutely nothing, no sir, to do with his veto decision.
PS Re the party political issue: it can be turned around: why should reactionary Tory pensioners block and wreck everything, the young and middle-aged are increasingly asking? As indeed on PB many a day.
My LinkedIn came alive yesterday with gushingly right-on tributes to Saint Jacinda, who has now Ascended.
Those who did it were so predictable I might now have to add her to the Woke pantheon.
Have you read avoid the abuse she’s had? Not good. Makes U.K.politics look civilised.
I have no time for abuse.
Nevertheless, I think she been deified - almost like a political Princess Diana, because she does empathy so well and people see something of their own struggles in her - and that means sometimes people won't brook any criticism of her.
In my view, she's been a pretty poor New Zealand PM but if I'd dared to mention that I'd have been criticised in hysterical and emotional terms, probably accused of misogyny and shot at dawn.
Immeasurable harm to the reputation of the country if Sunak is fined for not wearing a seatbelt? People really need to dial it down a notch.
I've always maintained MPs deservedly should be held to higher standards than the average citizen, and even more so ministers given the power they exercise over the rest of us. They should be better at adhering to rules, resisting temptations to benefit themselves or associates, and ideally more competent, though getting all three would be tough
I'd be in favour of toughening rules about losing their seat if convicted of a crime by a court, or adjusting what triggers a recall petition for example.
But serious though not following rules on road safety are, and in an open and shut case normal punishment should rightly follow, I just cannot see how it meaningfully does harm to the country. It's not associated with the most severe government restrictions on the public like covid rules.
Dude was a fool, and should get fined for it, end of.
Interesting thread by former tank brigade commander.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1616220288001396737 My aim in this thread is not to argue whether they should be provided. I think it is obvious they should. If Russia can deploy T90s or even its new T-14s (according to British Intelligence), why are we denying similar capabilities to #Ukraine?...
...We need to stop looking for excuses like ‘this is a complex system’. I don’t recall these arguments when M1 tanks went to Iraq, or Egypt. And as someone who commanded a brigade with M1 tanks, if the Australian Army with its very light logistic footprint (and lack of tank strategic sustainment for the first decade in service) can do it, the Ukrainians definitely can!
Interesting that he suggests sending either the Leopard or the Abrams, but not both, and presumably using the British Challengers as display pieces.
Given the mix of infantry fighting vehicles already pledged I don't think we're at a point of providing a single system to satisfy all of Ukraine's needs.
Give the Ukranians everything we can spare, as quickly as they can be trained on it. The faster they get new kit in theatre, the faster this damn war comes to its conclusion.
Do it, including you Herr Sholz, because it’s the right thing to do.
Comments
.@ScotSecofState has told us he is unable to attend our meeting on Tuesday.
He has suggested that @KemiBadenoch, Minister for Women and Equalities, is the appropriate Minister to invite, which we have now done: parliament.scot/chamber-and-co…
https://twitter.com/sp_ehrcj/status/1616145432073076736
I’ll go with
Lab 40 (no higher because Green will do well)
Lib Dems 29
Con 17 (maybe lower if Farage/reform have good night)
My theory is mid term local election night never matches current national polls does it, because the voters know exactly what they need, to protest locally and kick a government. If any of those 2,985,959 Tory votes are disgruntled, there’s loads of options available to them.
Like you agree with me Tory’s currently average 27% in polls, and got 28% in 2019 elections - you expecting a government getting a share in mid term locals which largely matches or out performs what it is currently polling? projected national Con share of 27 or 28% come May? And ruling out fall to 18 or 19%?
Just look what that does to starting point of 3,564 councillors and control of 93 councils. 🧐
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRilf3i8MrQ
Given the seats up exclude Labour London, Wales and SNP Scotland you would expect the Tory NEV to be slightly higher than their current voteshare and the Labour share to be slightly lower.
RefUK won't be able to field more than a handful of candidates and the Greens will also get a few votes to split the anti Tory vote.
The Tories have never fallen below 25% in a local elections, even in 1995
"In 1991 the law changed again making it a legal requirement for adults to wear seatbelts in the back of cars."
Can’t wait to see you proved wrong.
See also Ecclestone, David Kelly, peerages, etc. etc. etc.
The abusive, sadistic and embarrassing result at May’s locals will finish him. But who will get the leadership? It could be Boris again. Maybe Wallace or Penny?
No. It could only be a coming together, not a fight.
Imagine a deal - Penny as PM, Wallace as Deputy, done with blessing of Boris and his Support. That makes this Truss and Rishi nonsense period, history and just a bad dream come the GE next year.
So you are certainly correct that the LDs will struggle to have such a good night. (By contrast 2024 will probably be a very good year for the Yellow Peril.)
No you can’t level up. Levelling up is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, therefore not an honest or achievable policy platform.
You have Lady Thatcher in your avatar - would she have ever used such a divisive and populist phrase as Boris and his team invented with this “Levelling Up”? It’s got a touch of giving you the gold from the end of the rainbow about it, which is populist, but so so effective because it plays on localism: goodies for you at “their” expense. It’s exactly the sort of mindless damaging thing real conservatives steer clear of. Annual gerrymander day, as we had today, is pure Labour and Boris thinking, not proper Toryism.
Change leaders again? Would be farce played as tragedy.
Wallace won't run as he said before, Mordaunt is too Woke for the MPs and members.
Boris is the only viable alternative but Tory MPs won't even consider that except as a last resort just before the next general election
It can only be explained by a complete lack of investment in infrastructure, R&D and skills, and a refusal to let cities make decisions about anything without taking a begging bowl to Treasury.
So, there is a point to levelling up.
It’s just that the Tories have flunked it, like they’ve flunked everything else.
I don’t understand the reasoning.
To me Tories around the 20% and Lib Dems in 20%+ is nailed on.
28, 28, 19 in 2019, and 35, 30, 19 last year, Conservatives are currently thought of as a basket case of a party and a government, disliked more this year than in both 2019 and 2022 - how do the Tories avoid being dismantled by Lib Dems and Labour everywhere in just 104 days time?
That actual opposite will happen in May this year than your psephology - like last year Labour will find bits of midlands and North Red Wall still slow to come to them, whilst the Blue Wall will fall to LLG like domino’s.
I'm not sure she could be a lot worse. I'd like to see her bring in a genuinely broad-ranging Cabinet for the first time since Major. Even Rishi should get a job if he wants one, though not one of the main ones.
I think Wallace is a red herring. Doesn't want it. There's something going on there that we don't know about, and that's fine, let him be.
In fact, no not Gordon Brown, more Ed Miliband....he had so many PR gaffes (not just the bacon sandwich). Remember the two kitchens disaster, the photo of the home help cleaning his car, and of course the Ed stone. The media decided that they were going highlight every one of them......
That’s a interesting position. the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions CAN be levelled up, what is preventing this are conscious decisions made in Westminster - and government after government flunk the challenge.
But nope - it’s wrong. You are up against the natural order of things. And with that thinking you are peddling quite dangerous garbage.
I’ve tried to put it more politely that you are plain wrong, and it’s actually dangerous you are spreading thinking like that. But it can’t be put more politely. Your inaccurate argument is actually little different than the reason the SNP exist. Street riots happen. Civil Wars are fought. Etc.
Since Sunak has apologised, it's a bit of a non-story.
London is a red herring.
Predictably I'm going to weigh in on this, given that I represent large parts of Catterick on North Yorkshire County Council - which is where this £19M is being spent.
https://twitter.com/93vintagejones/status/1616000762957496320
Those who did it were so predictable I might now have to add her to the Woke pantheon.
As others have said, it doesn’t look good on the police for them to make a point of spending lots of time on something that results in a £30 fixed penalty ticket, and when the complaints are clearly politically motivated, when their attitude to much more serious crimes such as house burglaries and car thefts appears to be spotty at best.
One for @Leon : this year's winner of the '‘New Build in Traditional Style Stonemasonry’ award.
https://www.lancingcollege.co.uk/news/stonemasonry-prize-awarded-lancing-chapel
The unwittingly ironic name of the Women and Equalities department is the perfect example of how some who claim to be in favour of equality view the world through rather tinted glasses.
A better line of enquiry for opponents, would be to ask if he was using government resources to make a political video.
The approach you recommend prolongs it.
Their reasoning though, is nothing to do with the campaign by feminsist groups to ‘free the nipple’, but because the academic trust and safety board find themselves unable to define ‘woman’. The board said Meta's policy was based on a “binary view of gender and a distinction between male and female bodies”, meaning the rules were “unclear” on how they applied to transgender and non-binary people.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/18/facebook-instagram-told-free-nipple-meta-board/
https://mobile.twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1616220288001396737
My aim in this thread is not to argue whether they should be provided. I think it is obvious they should. If Russia can deploy T90s or even its new T-14s (according to British Intelligence), why are we denying similar capabilities to #Ukraine?...
...We need to stop looking for excuses like ‘this is a complex system’. I don’t recall these arguments when M1 tanks went to Iraq, or Egypt.
And as someone who commanded a brigade with M1 tanks, if the Australian Army with its very light logistic footprint (and lack of tank strategic sustainment for the first decade in service) can do it, the Ukrainians definitely can!
So, yes, does sound like police action is to be expected.
Something from the architectural press which argues, using faux-socio-political arguments, that Lancing College should have been completely torn down and rebuilt in rough finished concrete.
Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.
One is a very minor offence, dealt with by means of a £30 non-endorsable fixed penalty. The other is a permanent deprivation of someone’s often expensive property, that can and does result in a term of imprisonment. In aggravated cases, it can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
Given the mix of infantry fighting vehicles already pledged I don't think we're at a point of providing a single system to satisfy all of Ukraine's needs.
https://bengoertzel.substack.com/p/is-chatgpt-real-progress-toward-human
I decided to take this bit in the third paragraph as my "executive summary":
... I think it’s quite clear that systems like ChatGPT and Lamda are not only “not there yet”, but are essentially barking up the wrong tree. (Or, to stretch the metaphor a bit, maybe it’s more like they’re barking up a tree in the wrong forest, which is maybe on the wrong continent entirely…)
And that I think underlines just how small a crime not wearing a seatbelt is.
1. The SNP are on the opposite side of the culture war. The Tories are trying to demonise, divide and belittle. The SNP are trying to do the opposite
2. If you support the SNP you almost certainly support the idea of Scotland doing its own thing even if not all the way to independence. So Scottish elected ministers passing laws is precisely the kind of thing you support even if not that specific law. Your disapproving alternative is to vote for a unionist party and give up on autonomy.
C’est la vie
Money only going to nice areas is a long-standing problem. It takes vision and serious investment to pick an area up, we don't like to invest in this country because its communistic, so we leave them to rot for decades.
The political problem is that the Tories triumphed levelling up as the big fandango. After decades of Labour MPs and councils, finally someone Gets It and the cash will arrive! Except that as we see, it largely isn't. I loved the description of a "Hunger Games style competition" between bidding towns / communities because that is what it has looked like.
And now we see very stark choices being made - very little actual cash arriving in the deprived north, and what there is going directly into swing blue places that often don't need it such as Yarm.
I'm sure the idea was "bribe red wall morons with cash so they keep voting for us". Pity that ship has already sailed. As sadly has any hope of rescuing these places from the grim hell they have decayed into.
I deleted your second point because I think that’s the real reason they don’t suffer.
Put it this way, anyone who has a seatbelt available and doesn’t wear one is a muppet. Law or no law, it’s simple common sense.
While some of the more divisive allocations — such as funds for cabinet ministers’ seats, including Sunak’s — could have been avoided, much of this is down to Johnson. The failure of previous governments to define levelling up means people have bid, in the words of one MP, for “absolutely everything”. Successful bids range from funding for Malvern theatres to new cycling and walking infrastructure in Camden, north London. “I can’t speak for Boris but it’s not what I imagine he meant when he spoke in 2019,” says one MP from that intake.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/johnsons-a-menace-even-without-a-comeback-2nw9bzbws
Did you two see this report yesterday? Mr Jack claiming that trans issues had absolutely nothing, no sir, to do with his veto decision.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23263391.alister-jack-trans-people-not-part-thinking-section-35-decision/?ref=ebbn
It seems like an absolute no brainer that it would pay off hugely to build way more rail infrastructure across the country, and subsidise if if necessary. The most obvious candidate being NPR. It would translate straight into economic gains as countless examples across Europe show. Same with funding huge increases in thermal insulation and energy efficiency, and solar installations on roofs. Immediate payback in reduced energy costs. Plenty of others too.
The human pattern is that they always seem a bit too expensive to do now, or the payoff is too long, then in a decade’s time everyone deeply regrets missing the opportunity, but argues it’s now twice as expensive. Then a decade later etc.
Take decisions on new nuclear power a decade ago.
Nevertheless, I think she been deified - almost like a political Princess Diana, because she does empathy so well and people see something of their own struggles in her - and that means sometimes people won't brook any criticism of her.
In my view, she's been a pretty poor New Zealand PM but if I'd dared to mention that I'd have been criticised in hysterical and emotional terms, probably accused of misogyny and shot at dawn.
I've always maintained MPs deservedly should be held to higher standards than the average citizen, and even more so ministers given the power they exercise over the rest of us. They should be better at adhering to rules, resisting temptations to benefit themselves or associates, and ideally more competent, though getting all three would be tough
I'd be in favour of toughening rules about losing their seat if convicted of a crime by a court, or adjusting what triggers a recall petition for example.
But serious though not following rules on road safety are, and in an open and shut case normal punishment should rightly follow, I just cannot see how it meaningfully does harm to the country. It's not associated with the most severe government restrictions on the public like covid rules.
Dude was a fool, and should get fined for it, end of.
Do it, including you Herr Sholz, because it’s the right thing to do.