Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
The Tories in 1997 actually got 30%, a higher voteshare than the 29% Labour got in 2010
"Three-quarters of teachers surveyed say they have noticed children lacking access to toothpaste and toothbrushes"
First line -
"Four out of five UK teachers have given toothbrushes and toothpaste to students, with the cost of living crisis affecting the oral health of children, according to new research."
So more teachers have given out toothbrushes than have noticed children lacking access to them?
"Three-quarters of teachers surveyed say they have noticed children lacking access to toothpaste and toothbrushes"
First line -
"Four out of five UK teachers have given toothbrushes and toothpaste to students, with the cost of living crisis affecting the oral health of children, according to new research."
So more teachers have given out toothbrushes than have noticed children lacking access to them?
Story is probably "Childen forget to bring toothbrush and toothpaste to before-school breakfast club because children forget things a lot.". And the rest is Guardian.
One of the blessings of the UK is its relative absence of earthquakes and volcanoes.
My sister-in-law emigrated to NZ and seemed quite happy there but couldn't stay after the first big earthquake, despite the fact that they and their house survived unscathed. She found it deeply unsettling.
Though ironically we did decide to build the Windscale/Sellafield nuclear complex on the bit of land closest to the most active fault system in the British isles which runs down the middle of the Irish Sea.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
If that quake has fucked the Tas Tepeler - Gobekli and Karahan etc - that could be the greatest archaeological disaster of all time
To the extent they haven't been excavated, surely they are bombproof? Survived a lot of earthquakes already - the Greek temples in those parts have pretty much all fallen over, and they are one-fifth the age of GT etc.
Still wondering about the idea that Starmer isn't Blair? Therefore no landslide is possible. Relies on the idea it was Blair rather than Tory incompetence than was the main factor. If it wasn't then there is trouble ahead. Can't recollect a less functional government.
Yes we will soon have the answer to the question that has been posed since 1997: would John Smith have won a similar landslide anyway?
If Starmer wins a landslide I think it is safe to say that it was the Tories wot lost it, not Blair that won it (I am glad he won regardless).
Smith would have got a majority of about 100 not the 175 majority Blair got.
However if Sunak has cut borrowing by the next general election, then cut taxes and won back DKs and voters from RefUK he may even get a hung parliament. Starmer even now has won over fewer Tory voters to Labour than Blair did in 1997
During the GE campaign Labour need to play on the fear that if the Tories are reelected the membership will soon replace Sunak with Johnson or Truss. I could easily envisage the poster with little Sunak at the front and the hulking shadows of Truss and Johnson behind him.
It is plausible and would serve to keep memories of the Truss/Johnson governments at the forefront of voters minds.
If Rishi manages to win the election and comes out with a majority there's no way he gets replaced.
Johnson was.
Boris got axed because of personal impropriety, Rishi is too dull for all that.
Rishi’s problem is that he appears totally flat-footed.
Where’s the legislative agenda for the next two years, what’s his vision for the future of the country?
One of the blessings of the UK is its relative absence of earthquakes and volcanoes.
My sister-in-law emigrated to NZ and seemed quite happy there but couldn't stay after the first big earthquake, despite the fact that they and their house survived unscathed. She found it deeply unsettling.
Though ironically we did decide to build the Windscale/Sellafield nuclear complex on the bit of land closest to the most active fault system in the British isles which runs down the middle of the Irish Sea.
If that quake has fucked the Tas Tepeler - Gobekli and Karahan etc - that could be the greatest archaeological disaster of all time
To the extent they haven't been excavated, surely they are bombproof? Survived a lot of earthquakes already - the Greek temples in those parts have pretty much all fallen over, and they are one-fifth the age of GT etc.
But my guess is the recently excavated pillars are highly vulnerable. The reason they have survived 10,000 years is BECAUSE they were safely buried
Now they are exposed. Time to pray to Allah and Zoroaster and the Peacock Angel of the Yazidi
Still wondering about the idea that Starmer isn't Blair? Therefore no landslide is possible. Relies on the idea it was Blair rather than Tory incompetence than was the main factor. If it wasn't then there is trouble ahead. Can't recollect a less functional government.
Yes we will soon have the answer to the question that has been posed since 1997: would John Smith have won a similar landslide anyway?
If Starmer wins a landslide I think it is safe to say that it was the Tories wot lost it, not Blair that won it (I am glad he won regardless).
Smith would have got a majority of about 100 not the 175 majority Blair got.
However if Sunak has cut borrowing by the next general election, then cut taxes and won back DKs and voters from RefUK he may even get a hung parliament. Starmer even now has won over fewer Tory voters to Labour than Blair did in 1997
During the GE campaign Labour need to play on the fear that if the Tories are reelected the membership will soon replace Sunak with Johnson or Truss. I could easily envisage the poster with little Sunak at the front and the hulking shadows of Truss and Johnson behind him.
It is plausible and would serve to keep memories of the Truss/Johnson governments at the forefront of voters minds.
If Rishi manages to win the election and comes out with a majority there's no way he gets replaced.
Johnson was.
Boris got axed because of personal impropriety, Rishi is too dull for all that.
The impropriety was bookended by refusing to sack wrong 'uns - Paterson and Pincher. Sunak is beginning to look as if he is doing the same on a much grander scale. Raab's continuation in office is a serious scandal.
The other risk for RIshi is that he ends up doing something that is fine by the standards of the circles that he normally moves in, and isn't inherently wrong, but is seen as unacceptable for a PM by Mr and Mrs Normal Voter. Arguably both his green card and his wife's tax arrangements came in that category and could have gone worse for him than they did.
Still wondering about the idea that Starmer isn't Blair? Therefore no landslide is possible. Relies on the idea it was Blair rather than Tory incompetence than was the main factor. If it wasn't then there is trouble ahead. Can't recollect a less functional government.
Yes we will soon have the answer to the question that has been posed since 1997: would John Smith have won a similar landslide anyway?
If Starmer wins a landslide I think it is safe to say that it was the Tories wot lost it, not Blair that won it (I am glad he won regardless).
Smith would have got a majority of about 100 not the 175 majority Blair got.
However if Sunak has cut borrowing by the next general election, then cut taxes and won back DKs and voters from RefUK he may even get a hung parliament. Starmer even now has won over fewer Tory voters to Labour than Blair did in 1997
During the GE campaign Labour need to play on the fear that if the Tories are reelected the membership will soon replace Sunak with Johnson or Truss. I could easily envisage the poster with little Sunak at the front and the hulking shadows of Truss and Johnson behind him.
It is plausible and would serve to keep memories of the Truss/Johnson governments at the forefront of voters minds.
If Rishi manages to win the election and comes out with a majority there's no way he gets replaced.
Johnson was.
Boris got axed because of personal impropriety, Rishi is too dull for all that.
Rishi’s problem is that he appears totally flat-footed.
Where’s the legislative agenda for the next two years, what’s his vision for the future of the country?
I assume with the GE election coming up next year, it will come with that.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
The sympathy people had for John Major as a fundamentally decent chap, even if they didn't want him as Prime Minister any more?
One of the blessings of the UK is its relative absence of earthquakes and volcanoes.
My sister-in-law emigrated to NZ and seemed quite happy there but couldn't stay after the first big earthquake, despite the fact that they and their house survived unscathed. She found it deeply unsettling.
Being 22 floors up a tower block when an earthquake happened, is something I hope never to experience again!
Watching the building opposite move quite considerably relative to yours, as the ground feels funny and the lights start swinging, is what happens in bad dreams and earthquakes.
"Three-quarters of teachers surveyed say they have noticed children lacking access to toothpaste and toothbrushes"
First line -
"Four out of five UK teachers have given toothbrushes and toothpaste to students, with the cost of living crisis affecting the oral health of children, according to new research."
So more teachers have given out toothbrushes than have noticed children lacking access to them?
You're probably right Blanche, shoddy journalism... but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with more teachers giving out toothbrushes than noticed children lacking access to them.
E.g. Half the class seem to lack access to toothbrushes - rather than expose some to shame and ridicule, since I've got enough, I'll give one to everyone in this class.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
Maybe a better comparison is 1964-1979? Although there were (many) changes of government during that period, no-one was out of office for long enough to renew, and eventually, as the same tired faces rotated in and out of the cabinet, the disgruntled electorate sacked them for what was not exactly a popular offering at GE 1979, but did at least look different to what had been presented for the previous 15 years.
Still wondering about the idea that Starmer isn't Blair? Therefore no landslide is possible. Relies on the idea it was Blair rather than Tory incompetence than was the main factor. If it wasn't then there is trouble ahead. Can't recollect a less functional government.
Yes we will soon have the answer to the question that has been posed since 1997: would John Smith have won a similar landslide anyway?
If Starmer wins a landslide I think it is safe to say that it was the Tories wot lost it, not Blair that won it (I am glad he won regardless).
Smith would have got a majority of about 100 not the 175 majority Blair got.
However if Sunak has cut borrowing by the next general election, then cut taxes and won back DKs and voters from RefUK he may even get a hung parliament. Starmer even now has won over fewer Tory voters to Labour than Blair did in 1997
Do you have any polling source for the number of Conservative 1992 voters that went Labour in 1997? I've not been able to find any.
Labour added about 2m voters in 1997, so even if every single one came from John Major's 14m voters in 1992, it'd amount to 14% of 1992 Cons. And as we can reasonably assume not every additional Labour voter came from Con, a figure closer to 10% seems more on the mark.
Thus, to my eye, Starmer is polling a broadly similar proportion of 2019 Con voters as Blair won 1992 Con voters in 1997.
Including DKs just 11% of 2019 Conservative voters now back Labour, so less than the 14% of 1992 Conservative voters who voted for Blair in 1997
Plus only 41% voted Tory in 1992 while 43% voted Conservative in 2019, so Blair had fewer Conservative voters to squeeze than Starmer does in terms of percentage of the electorate
Interesting. Not much difference then. Where did you source the 1997 figures from HY?
Labour vote went up by 2 million votes from 1992 to 1997.
2 million was 14% of Major's 1992 vote
As I say, if you account that not all of Labour's additional 1997 votes came from Conservative, the end figure won't be that 14% of 1992 Conservatives voted Labour.
LD shed 750k votes at that election and there will have been some 1992 DNVs who went for Blair.
Of course there will have been a few switchers away from Labour as well, but I suspect a worthwhile proportion of the Labour increase was net switching from 1992 non-Conservatives and thus 1992 Con -> 1997 Lab was at least a couple of points below 14%.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
The sympathy people had for John Major as a fundamentally decent chap, even if they didn't want him as Prime Minister any more?
An actually popular LOTO, but you knew that already.
Still wondering about the idea that Starmer isn't Blair? Therefore no landslide is possible. Relies on the idea it was Blair rather than Tory incompetence than was the main factor. If it wasn't then there is trouble ahead. Can't recollect a less functional government.
Yes we will soon have the answer to the question that has been posed since 1997: would John Smith have won a similar landslide anyway?
If Starmer wins a landslide I think it is safe to say that it was the Tories wot lost it, not Blair that won it (I am glad he won regardless).
Smith would have got a majority of about 100 not the 175 majority Blair got.
However if Sunak has cut borrowing by the next general election, then cut taxes and won back DKs and voters from RefUK he may even get a hung parliament. Starmer even now has won over fewer Tory voters to Labour than Blair did in 1997
During the GE campaign Labour need to play on the fear that if the Tories are reelected the membership will soon replace Sunak with Johnson or Truss. I could easily envisage the poster with little Sunak at the front and the hulking shadows of Truss and Johnson behind him.
It is plausible and would serve to keep memories of the Truss/Johnson governments at the forefront of voters minds.
If Rishi manages to win the election and comes out with a majority there's no way he gets replaced.
Johnson was.
Boris got axed because of personal impropriety, Rishi is too dull for all that.
Rishi’s problem is that he appears totally flat-footed.
Where’s the legislative agenda for the next two years, what’s his vision for the future of the country?
I assume with the GE election coming up next year, it will come with that.
Not good for the country. but the politics works.
He needs to do something - that’s a lot more ambitions than managerial declinism at the hands of the Treasury mandarins - before the election, if he wants to avoid losing half his seats. That’s his problem, and there’s no suggestion that he has anything like a plan.
I missed the previous thread ...the maximum risk for Sunak will be if the Privileges Committee inquiry into Boris Johnson and partygate recommends suspending Boris Johnson from the Commons for a period that can trigger the recall process...
Does anyone know when the Privileges Committee inquiry will complete? Why is it taking so long?
Do we have any seismologists. Is this near or far in terms of an earthquake?!
@SnkBrs m 7.8 earthquake epicenter approx 120 miles from gobekli tepe
Near enough to cause a lot of damage. But to be honest it will be nothing they can't repair. Remember in the UK places like Stonehenge and Avebury have undergone massive restorations and repairs. At Avebury almost none of the stones were left standing by the end of the 19th century. A far bigger concern is the bulldozing of archaeological sites just across the border in Syria.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
Maybe a better comparison is 1964-1979? Although there were (many) changes of government during that period, no-one was out of office for long enough to renew, and eventually, as the same tired faces rotated in and out of the cabinet, the disgruntled electorate sacked them for what was not exactly a popular offering at GE 1979, but did at least look different to what had been presented for the previous 15 years.
And then the opposition gained 62 seats and the government lost 50. Those changes next time would take us back to 2017.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
However they were Tories and still had some talented people in the party. The current lot are talentless nutters.
One of the blessings of the UK is its relative absence of earthquakes and volcanoes.
My sister-in-law emigrated to NZ and seemed quite happy there but couldn't stay after the first big earthquake, despite the fact that they and their house survived unscathed. She found it deeply unsettling.
Being 22 floors up a tower block when an earthquake happened, is something I hope never to experience again!
Watching the building opposite move quite considerably relative to yours, as the ground feels funny and the lights start swinging, is what happens in bad dreams and earthquakes.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
The sympathy people had for John Major as a fundamentally decent chap, even if they didn't want him as Prime Minister any more?
An actually popular LOTO, but you knew that already.
Of course I did, but the point is that it's quite possibly going to be roughly a wash.
Starmer is less attractive than Blair, but even in 1997 Major was a bigger asset for the Conservatives than Sunak is now.
"Three-quarters of teachers surveyed say they have noticed children lacking access to toothpaste and toothbrushes"
First line -
"Four out of five UK teachers have given toothbrushes and toothpaste to students, with the cost of living crisis affecting the oral health of children, according to new research."
So more teachers have given out toothbrushes than have noticed children lacking access to them?
You're probably right Blanche, shoddy journalism... but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with more teachers giving out toothbrushes than noticed children lacking access to them.
E.g. Half the class seem to lack access to toothbrushes - rather than expose some to shame and ridicule, since I've got enough, I'll give one to everyone in this class.
If in doubt, why not give them out?
It's a percentage of teachers noticing / giving them out, not percentage of students lacking / receiving them
So they're saying that five percent of teachers didn't notice a shortage, but thought they'd just give them out anyway
"Three-quarters of teachers surveyed say they have noticed children lacking access to toothpaste and toothbrushes"
First line -
"Four out of five UK teachers have given toothbrushes and toothpaste to students, with the cost of living crisis affecting the oral health of children, according to new research."
So more teachers have given out toothbrushes than have noticed children lacking access to them?
My daughter came home from primary school with toothpaste and a toothbrush. Seemed like one of the toothpaste companies had funded an "oral health" lesson to teach the small children about the importance of brushing their teeth (with the right brand of toothpaste, natch).
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
The sympathy people had for John Major as a fundamentally decent chap, even if they didn't want him as Prime Minister any more?
An actually popular LOTO, but you knew that already.
Of course I did, but the point is that it's quite possibly going to be roughly a wash.
Starmer is less attractive than Blair, but even in 1997 Major was a bigger asset for the Conservatives than Sunak is now.
I'm not at all sure that's true. By 1997 Major was a figure of fun.
Everyone has already decided what they think of her, and will trot out the same lines in criticism no matter what she actually says.
Yes, I’m in that small remaining group who thought that she was completely right to try and put a rocket under the economy after the events of the last few years - and highlighted during the leadership campaign in the summer, that the “Sunakites” in the PCP and beyond gave the impression of not wanting to accept the result of the contest going against them.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
The sympathy people had for John Major as a fundamentally decent chap, even if they didn't want him as Prime Minister any more?
An actually popular LOTO, but you knew that already.
Of course I did, but the point is that it's quite possibly going to be roughly a wash.
Starmer is less attractive than Blair, but even in 1997 Major was a bigger asset for the Conservatives than Sunak is now.
Sunak is seen as more competent than Major was in 1997.
Major was an effective campaigner against Kinnock in 1992, much less so against Blair in 1997 and Starmer is still no Blair in terms of appeal to Middle England
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
Maybe a better comparison is 1964-1979? Although there were (many) changes of government during that period, no-one was out of office for long enough to renew, and eventually, as the same tired faces rotated in and out of the cabinet, the disgruntled electorate sacked them for what was not exactly a popular offering at GE 1979, but did at least look different to what had been presented for the previous 15 years.
And then the opposition gained 62 seats and the government lost 50. Those changes next time would take us back to 2017.
In this case, though, it has been the Tories in government for the entire time (with all due respect to The Coalition). In 1979 the blame was more evenly distributed according to the colour of the rosette, as both had been in office; and yet there was still a 100+ seat swing. You could reasonably posit double that if the mud is only sticking to one party.
Do we have any seismologists. Is this near or far in terms of an earthquake?!
@SnkBrs m 7.8 earthquake epicenter approx 120 miles from gobekli tepe
Near enough to cause a lot of damage. But to be honest it will be nothing they can't repair. Remember in the UK places like Stonehenge and Avebury have undergone massive restorations and repairs. At Avebury almost none of the stones were left standing by the end of the 19th century. A far bigger concern is the bulldozing of archaeological sites just across the border in Syria.
I love Avebury but Gobekli is in a different league of importance - and fragility. Exquisitely carved pillars unearthed entirely intact. Dating from the ice age
They can be smashed and will not be easily repaired. And will never be the same
Joined up thinking with those plans to run shorter trains. Between 4-12 of February we’re starting our next phase of Morley station upgrades. Alternative routes will keep you moving between Huddersfield and Leeds, but please check before you travel. We are building platforms fit for longer trains as part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade https://mobile.twitter.com/theTRUpgrade/status/1613823293185826816
Long term planning given the need for HS2 trains to go from Manchester to Leed. They will probably be all stop services given the need to maximise capacity...
Last contribution of the morning before I disappear.
Looks like the Morley station upgrade is a subsidiary win to track realignment and upgrade in the area. None of the longer distance trains currently stop at Morley afaict (Hull-Liverpool would be the most likely), but in any case the platform is small for the commuter volumes.
My whinge this morning was that, even having put together a sensibly and considerably reduced engineering timetable that runs Leeds to Manchester via Bradford and Huddersfield, Transpennine managed to pre-cancel over half of that reduced timetable last night.
I suspect with the lack of an overtime agreement route familiarisation on the Bradford diversion is lacking.
Diverting via Wakefield, not Bradford. But I agree about the usual high number of cancellations.
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
Maybe a better comparison is 1964-1979? Although there were (many) changes of government during that period, no-one was out of office for long enough to renew, and eventually, as the same tired faces rotated in and out of the cabinet, the disgruntled electorate sacked them for what was not exactly a popular offering at GE 1979, but did at least look different to what had been presented for the previous 15 years.
And then the opposition gained 62 seats and the government lost 50. Those changes next time would take us back to 2017.
In this case, though, it has been the Tories in government for the entire time (with all due respect to The Coalition). In 1979 the blame was more evenly distributed according to the colour of the rosette, as both had been in office; and yet there was still a 100+ seat swing. You could reasonably posit double that if the mud is only sticking to one party.
Yes, that's fair enough, and accords with my current central projection - a small Labour majority.
Still wondering about the idea that Starmer isn't Blair? Therefore no landslide is possible. Relies on the idea it was Blair rather than Tory incompetence than was the main factor. If it wasn't then there is trouble ahead. Can't recollect a less functional government.
Yes we will soon have the answer to the question that has been posed since 1997: would John Smith have won a similar landslide anyway?
If Starmer wins a landslide I think it is safe to say that it was the Tories wot lost it, not Blair that won it (I am glad he won regardless).
Smith would have got a majority of about 100 not the 175 majority Blair got.
However if Sunak has cut borrowing by the next general election, then cut taxes and won back DKs and voters from RefUK he may even get a hung parliament. Starmer even now has won over fewer Tory voters to Labour than Blair did in 1997
During the GE campaign Labour need to play on the fear that if the Tories are reelected the membership will soon replace Sunak with Johnson or Truss. I could easily envisage the poster with little Sunak at the front and the hulking shadows of Truss and Johnson behind him.
It is plausible and would serve to keep memories of the Truss/Johnson governments at the forefront of voters minds.
Labour don't need to do anything from that point of view; the more (ahem) eccentric elements of the Conservative Party- the ones already talking about their ambitions to take over after the next election- will do that job for the red team.
(In reality, if Rishi gets a win from here, it will be a political achievement meriting him becoming President For Life. But that story is a bit too subtle for a primary colour campaign. People will hear Truss, Braverman or JRM manovering to become Conservative leader and draw their own conclusions.)
I see it another way, if Starmer gets say a 100 seat majority, I think that is more remarkable than the Tories winning again, Tories win elections, there are many reasons for this, none of them have anything to do with them being competent
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
Maybe a better comparison is 1964-1979? Although there were (many) changes of government during that period, no-one was out of office for long enough to renew, and eventually, as the same tired faces rotated in and out of the cabinet, the disgruntled electorate sacked them for what was not exactly a popular offering at GE 1979, but did at least look different to what had been presented for the previous 15 years.
And then the opposition gained 62 seats and the government lost 50. Those changes next time would take us back to 2017.
In this case, though, it has been the Tories in government for the entire time (with all due respect to The Coalition). In 1979 the blame was more evenly distributed according to the colour of the rosette, as both had been in office; and yet there was still a 100+ seat swing. You could reasonably posit double that if the mud is only sticking to one party.
In 1979 Callaghan actually won more votes than Wilson had in October 1974.
It was the collapse of the Liberal vote, particularly to the Tories and higher turnout that put Thatcher in No 10. Not switchers from Labour
Still wondering about the idea that Starmer isn't Blair? Therefore no landslide is possible. Relies on the idea it was Blair rather than Tory incompetence than was the main factor. If it wasn't then there is trouble ahead. Can't recollect a less functional government.
Yes we will soon have the answer to the question that has been posed since 1997: would John Smith have won a similar landslide anyway?
If Starmer wins a landslide I think it is safe to say that it was the Tories wot lost it, not Blair that won it (I am glad he won regardless).
Smith would have got a majority of about 100 not the 175 majority Blair got.
However if Sunak has cut borrowing by the next general election, then cut taxes and won back DKs and voters from RefUK he may even get a hung parliament. Starmer even now has won over fewer Tory voters to Labour than Blair did in 1997
During the GE campaign Labour need to play on the fear that if the Tories are reelected the membership will soon replace Sunak with Johnson or Truss. I could easily envisage the poster with little Sunak at the front and the hulking shadows of Truss and Johnson behind him.
It is plausible and would serve to keep memories of the Truss/Johnson governments at the forefront of voters minds.
Are you really sure Labour should be raising the spectre of parties' previous leaders?
Yes. Corbyn was a never PM and he is no longer a Labour MP. The spectre of Corbyn returning as PM if Labour is elected is risible.
Truss and Johnson on the other hand are both on manoeuvres and we know they are the preferences of the loony membership.
The chance of either getting past the MPs in a future leadership election is also risible.
It really isn't, If we believe what we are told Johnson had the MP numbers to go up against Sunak but chose not to.
One of the blessings of the UK is its relative absence of earthquakes and volcanoes.
My sister-in-law emigrated to NZ and seemed quite happy there but couldn't stay after the first big earthquake, despite the fact that they and their house survived unscathed. She found it deeply unsettling.
Being 22 floors up a tower block when an earthquake happened, is something I hope never to experience again!
Watching the building opposite move quite considerably relative to yours, as the ground feels funny and the lights start swinging, is what happens in bad dreams and earthquakes.
Liked but not liked, if you know what I mean.
Thankfully, my current office is only 20 floors up!
Do we have any seismologists. Is this near or far in terms of an earthquake?!
@SnkBrs m 7.8 earthquake epicenter approx 120 miles from gobekli tepe
Near enough to cause a lot of damage. But to be honest it will be nothing they can't repair. Remember in the UK places like Stonehenge and Avebury have undergone massive restorations and repairs. At Avebury almost none of the stones were left standing by the end of the 19th century. A far bigger concern is the bulldozing of archaeological sites just across the border in Syria.
". At Avebury almost none of the stones were left standing by the end of the 19th century. "
I too love Avebury. It's a far more pleasant - and accessible - place than the hideous hellhole that EH have turned Stonehenge into.
But I also love The Sanctuary, at the end of the Avenue from Avebury, because you go there and there are no stones left. Yet when Aubrey went there in the 1600s. some stones were still standing. It shows how little these places were cared for in the post-medieval times. I see it as a salutatory warning.
It's also interesting how little of Hadrian's Wall might be left, were it not for John Clayton in Victorian times.
City are alleged to have broken the rules for every season between 2009/10 and 2017/2018. If they had been docked points in those seasons then ManU would have had 2 extra PLs and Liverpool 1. If they were also docked points in a subsequent season (2018/2019) then Liverpool would've got another one too.
It will bring back stressful memories for my eldest who was actually driving into Christchurch as the 2011 quake hit and he witnessed terrible scenes as he volunteered for ground zero rescue work
It was this that caused his PTSD and mental health breakdown, which he is only now beginning to recover from
Between 2010 and 2014 there were 11,200 aftershocks in Christchurch and Canterbury
Hi everyone, just dropping by to say I'm not dead, just in case you were all missing me and my face palm dead certs that fall over trying to negotiate exiting the stalls. Missing the banter, but im afraid mentally im in a very fragile place and have been for some months, so im avoiding anything that may end up triggering, even totally innocently. Hope to be back some time. I dont think ive even logged on since my last check in so if anyone has been dragged outside and shot or tarred and feathered for group amusement sadly i missed it. By which i mean proper people, not the bot army. Anyway i hope you are all well and FWIW, my central forecast is currently Labour a handful short, something like a GE day vote of 41 Lab 32/33 Con, but upper end 45 30 and chaos in the shires
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
Maybe a better comparison is 1964-1979? Although there were (many) changes of government during that period, no-one was out of office for long enough to renew, and eventually, as the same tired faces rotated in and out of the cabinet, the disgruntled electorate sacked them for what was not exactly a popular offering at GE 1979, but did at least look different to what had been presented for the previous 15 years.
And then the opposition gained 62 seats and the government lost 50. Those changes next time would take us back to 2017.
In this case, though, it has been the Tories in government for the entire time (with all due respect to The Coalition). In 1979 the blame was more evenly distributed according to the colour of the rosette, as both had been in office; and yet there was still a 100+ seat swing. You could reasonably posit double that if the mud is only sticking to one party.
In 1979 Callaghan actually won more votes than Wilson had in October 1974.
It was the collapse of the Liberal vote, particularly to the Tories and higher turnout that put Thatcher in No 10. Not switchers from Labour
Voters who switch between Labour and Conservative are a rare beast. Using the concept of swing makes us think that this is at the heart of how elections are won and lost, but differential turnout, switching to and from minor parties, etc. are just as important, if not moreso.
Hi everyone, just dropping by to say I'm not dead, just in case you were all missing me and my face palm dead certs that fall over trying to negotiate exiting the stalls. Missing the banter, but im afraid mentally im in a very fragile place and have been for some months, so im avoiding anything that may end up triggering, even totally innocently. Hope to be back some time. I dont think ive even logged on since my last check in so if anyone has been dragged outside and shot or tarred and feathered for group amusement sadly i missed it. By which i mean proper people, not the bot army. Anyway i hope you are all well and FWIW, my central forecast is currently Labour a handful short, something like a GE day vote of 41 Lab 32/33 Con, but upper end 45 30 and chaos in the shires
Hey Mr Woolie, great to hear from you. Keep well, and agree with your prediction!
"Three-quarters of teachers surveyed say they have noticed children lacking access to toothpaste and toothbrushes"
First line -
"Four out of five UK teachers have given toothbrushes and toothpaste to students, with the cost of living crisis affecting the oral health of children, according to new research."
So more teachers have given out toothbrushes than have noticed children lacking access to them?
You're probably right Blanche, shoddy journalism... but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with more teachers giving out toothbrushes than noticed children lacking access to them.
E.g. Half the class seem to lack access to toothbrushes - rather than expose some to shame and ridicule, since I've got enough, I'll give one to everyone in this class.
If in doubt, why not give them out?
That’s not what the article says though
75% of teachers have spotted an issue 80% of teachers have given products out
Options:
- they have been instructed to hand out even though they haven’t spotted an issue (eg a TA in a class where a teacher spots the issue or vice versa) - They are filling in a boring survey and ticking boxes randomly
I missed the previous thread ...the maximum risk for Sunak will be if the Privileges Committee inquiry into Boris Johnson and partygate recommends suspending Boris Johnson from the Commons for a period that can trigger the recall process...
Does anyone know when the Privileges Committee inquiry will complete? Why is it taking so long?
Presumably they have a lot of privileges to look at.
"Three-quarters of teachers surveyed say they have noticed children lacking access to toothpaste and toothbrushes"
First line -
"Four out of five UK teachers have given toothbrushes and toothpaste to students, with the cost of living crisis affecting the oral health of children, according to new research."
So more teachers have given out toothbrushes than have noticed children lacking access to them?
You're probably right Blanche, shoddy journalism... but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with more teachers giving out toothbrushes than noticed children lacking access to them.
E.g. Half the class seem to lack access to toothbrushes - rather than expose some to shame and ridicule, since I've got enough, I'll give one to everyone in this class.
If in doubt, why not give them out?
That’s not what the article says though
75% of teachers have spotted an issue 80% of teachers have given products out
Options:
- they have been instructed to hand out even though they haven’t spotted an issue (eg a TA in a class where a teacher spots the issue or vice versa) - They are filling in a boring survey and ticking boxes randomly
Or "the actual number is 77% or 78% and two different people have rounded it to a fraction differently"?
Hi everyone, just dropping by to say I'm not dead, just in case you were all missing me and my face palm dead certs that fall over trying to negotiate exiting the stalls. Missing the banter, but im afraid mentally im in a very fragile place and have been for some months, so im avoiding anything that may end up triggering, even totally innocently. Hope to be back some time. I dont think ive even logged on since my last check in so if anyone has been dragged outside and shot or tarred and feathered for group amusement sadly i missed it. By which i mean proper people, not the bot army. Anyway i hope you are all well and FWIW, my central forecast is currently Labour a handful short, something like a GE day vote of 41 Lab 32/33 Con, but upper end 45 30 and chaos in the shires
Hello Woollie I agree with your projection of LAB 41 CON 32/33. I expect that this will produce a small LAB majority though maybe 30 seat maj. The swing will be greater in the marginals.
Hi everyone, just dropping by to say I'm not dead, just in case you were all missing me and my face palm dead certs that fall over trying to negotiate exiting the stalls. Missing the banter, but im afraid mentally im in a very fragile place and have been for some months, so im avoiding anything that may end up triggering, even totally innocently. Hope to be back some time. I dont think ive even logged on since my last check in so if anyone has been dragged outside and shot or tarred and feathered for group amusement sadly i missed it. By which i mean proper people, not the bot army. Anyway i hope you are all well and FWIW, my central forecast is currently Labour a handful short, something like a GE day vote of 41 Lab 32/33 Con, but upper end 45 30 and chaos in the shires
I am not posting as much as frankly the 'die is cast' and I have lots of other interests taking up my time
You are totally correct to protect your mental health and in life there is a lot more than politics
Hi everyone, just dropping by to say I'm not dead, just in case you were all missing me and my face palm dead certs that fall over trying to negotiate exiting the stalls. Missing the banter, but im afraid mentally im in a very fragile place and have been for some months, so im avoiding anything that may end up triggering, even totally innocently. Hope to be back some time. I dont think ive even logged on since my last check in so if anyone has been dragged outside and shot or tarred and feathered for group amusement sadly i missed it. By which i mean proper people, not the bot army. Anyway i hope you are all well and FWIW, my central forecast is currently Labour a handful short, something like a GE day vote of 41 Lab 32/33 Con, but upper end 45 30 and chaos in the shires
Good luck working through stuff. You always have friends here when you need
"Three-quarters of teachers surveyed say they have noticed children lacking access to toothpaste and toothbrushes"
First line -
"Four out of five UK teachers have given toothbrushes and toothpaste to students, with the cost of living crisis affecting the oral health of children, according to new research."
So more teachers have given out toothbrushes than have noticed children lacking access to them?
You're probably right Blanche, shoddy journalism... but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with more teachers giving out toothbrushes than noticed children lacking access to them.
E.g. Half the class seem to lack access to toothbrushes - rather than expose some to shame and ridicule, since I've got enough, I'll give one to everyone in this class.
If in doubt, why not give them out?
That’s not what the article says though
75% of teachers have spotted an issue 80% of teachers have given products out
Options:
- they have been instructed to hand out even though they haven’t spotted an issue (eg a TA in a class where a teacher spots the issue or vice versa) - They are filling in a boring survey and ticking boxes randomly
Or "the actual number is 77% or 78% and two different people have rounded it to a fraction differently"?
Is it fair to say the Tory Party is now where Labour was in 2019?
No, the Tories are 13 years into government, not 9 years into opposition.
The Tories are now more where Labour was in 2010 after 13 years in government therefore than 2019
The Tories are surely more in the same place they were in 1997 - long period in government, scandal-ridden, divided over Europe, economic credentials trashed... Doomed.
One thing is very much missing from 1997.
Maybe a better comparison is 1964-1979? Although there were (many) changes of government during that period, no-one was out of office for long enough to renew, and eventually, as the same tired faces rotated in and out of the cabinet, the disgruntled electorate sacked them for what was not exactly a popular offering at GE 1979, but did at least look different to what had been presented for the previous 15 years.
And then the opposition gained 62 seats and the government lost 50. Those changes next time would take us back to 2017.
In this case, though, it has been the Tories in government for the entire time (with all due respect to The Coalition). In 1979 the blame was more evenly distributed according to the colour of the rosette, as both had been in office; and yet there was still a 100+ seat swing. You could reasonably posit double that if the mud is only sticking to one party.
In 1979 Callaghan actually won more votes than Wilson had in October 1974.
It was the collapse of the Liberal vote, particularly to the Tories and higher turnout that put Thatcher in No 10. Not switchers from Labour
An interesting detail.
Labour increased its vote by 100k, and the Liberals lost a million votes. But Thatcher's Conservatives gained 3 million votes - so 2 million people who had been sitting on their hands since the 1970 election came out to give the incumbents a kicking. Non-voters turning out was the most significant single component - and that is *not* analogous to the current situation. In 2019 non-voters from the previous 2 elections came out to make sure that Corbyn didn't get elected (and we had ~29m votes for the 3 main parties in England).
Oh no, I do hope this doesn't mean Truss has lost The Independent.
Not just the Indy…
I assume you're joking, given the Murdoch/Gove/Sunak nexus. 'Nothing to do with the fact that our actual Government is shit and people's leccy bills are through the roof, it's all the fault of an article by Truss.'
Sunak's allies really are quite a fetid bunch aren't they? They were briefing like this all through Liz Truss's premiership, now the woman comes out from the backbenches, doesn’t even criticise Sunak directly, and they do an encore.
Oh no, I do hope this doesn't mean Truss has lost The Independent.
Not just the Indy…
I assume you're joking, given the Murdoch/Gove/Sunak nexus. 'Nothing to do with the fact that our actual Government is shit and people's leccy bills are through the roof, it's all the fault of an article by Truss.'
Sunak's allies really are quite a fetid bunch aren't they? They were briefing like this all through Liz Truss's premiership, now the woman comes out from the backbenches, doesn’t even criticise Sunak directly, and they do an encore.
The reason they were briefing against Truss was because they were correct
She was and is an unmitigated disaster for the country and the conservative party and yes, a total embarrassment
Hi everyone, just dropping by to say I'm not dead, just in case you were all missing me and my face palm dead certs that fall over trying to negotiate exiting the stalls. Missing the banter, but im afraid mentally im in a very fragile place and have been for some months, so im avoiding anything that may end up triggering, even totally innocently. Hope to be back some time. I dont think ive even logged on since my last check in so if anyone has been dragged outside and shot or tarred and feathered for group amusement sadly i missed it. By which i mean proper people, not the bot army. Anyway i hope you are all well and FWIW, my central forecast is currently Labour a handful short, something like a GE day vote of 41 Lab 32/33 Con, but upper end 45 30 and chaos in the shires
I am not posting as much as frankly the 'die is cast' and I have lots of other interests taking up my time
You are totally correct to protect your mental health and in life there is a lot more than politics
All the best
Things have quietened down to their quietest since 2016. No Brexit, no covid, no Johnson. Sleazy broken Tory party on the slide, sure, but situation normal. look at the spacing of the posts recently, there's 5 minute gaps. Back to posting about vegetables soon.
Well, forgive me, but I was a small child in 1994. At that age I got my news from, iirc, BBC Newsround. What did I say at the time? Probably something along the lines of "Oh no, that's awful" and then watched neighbours.
A decade later, though, while still a teenager, I spent a weekend in Rwanda, which included visiting a school at Gikongoro and standing a foot away from the lime covered bodies of dead Tutsis and moderate Hutus. I saw with my own eyes the slit achiles tendons on the bottom of the childrens legs - done so to prevent their victims running away, while the perpetrators could have lunch and a few beers before getting back to their genocide.
I've also read a few books and spent some time at university engaging with the literature on various genocides. Grim stuff. In the mid-2000's there was a brief debate about a"responsibility to protect" principle - how and whether it should be enshrined in International law. My conclusion isn't that state sovereignty should be inviolable, but it should be largely respected as the best long term stategy for reducing aggregate human misery and death from violence. The tiny proportion of the world population killed through violent conflict since 1945 - relative to pretty much any point prior to that is, in my considered view, largely down to the respecting of borders and national sovereignty. Russia's justification for their war is a cynical perversion of the R2P principle. It's bullshit framing for domestic consumption.
Mearsheimer, in fairness to him, sees straight through Russia's humanitarian justifications. It's all about power politics in his worldview.
There is nothing that happened in the Donbass or Crimea between the 1990's and 2014/2022 that justified Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty.
I see what you did there. You don't see the 2014 referendums as legitimate, then.
I'm all in favour of holding re-runs after both sides agree to respect the results. That would bring an end to the killing. Minor alterations to boundaries of one or more of the territories would be allowed if indicated and agreed. The voting should be supervised by a neutral heavyweight power on behalf of the UN. China would be the obvious choice.
But no. The regime in Kiev won't hear of it. They want their forces to be in military control of all the territories, and that's it. Screw what people living in those areas actually want. They're even putting out stuff about how residents of Bakhmut, which they seem to want to defend to the death of the last inhabitant, are a bunch of disloyal types (and we know what can happen to disloyal types during sieges) who are simply "waiting" for the city to fall to Russian forces. Perhaps these "waiting" people see the 2014 and 2022 referendums as legitimate and therefore view the Donetsk region as having legitimately claimed independence and then legitimately joined Russia. They live there. They're entitled to hold that view, yes? It matters whether they do or not. But hey no, impossible.
Oh fuck off will you.
Sending in your military to kill, rape, and forcibly deport an extant population, followed by moving in your own people and *then* holding a “referendum” about that region - that’s done and dusted in a week, with no external oversight - is a war crime and nothing less. Those involved should be up in The Hague, if their enemies don’t get to them first.
I'm not sure I want to see the likes of Putin, Prigozhin, Medvedev, Bortnikov, Mishustin and Lavrov at The Hague.
I mean, who are we to deny the lamp posts of Moscow their moment of glory?
I’m a fan of due process. Letting them contemplate their lives and behaviours for a couple of years during the trial, then the rest of their natural lives in a small cell, with little human contact and the constant thought that a terrorist might get to their family on the outside, would be a fitting reward for their behaviour.
Death is too nice for them - not that I’d complain too much if the lynch mob got there first.
Do we have any seismologists. Is this near or far in terms of an earthquake?!
@SnkBrs m 7.8 earthquake epicenter approx 120 miles from gobekli tepe
Near enough to cause a lot of damage. But to be honest it will be nothing they can't repair. Remember in the UK places like Stonehenge and Avebury have undergone massive restorations and repairs. At Avebury almost none of the stones were left standing by the end of the 19th century. A far bigger concern is the bulldozing of archaeological sites just across the border in Syria.
I love Avebury but Gobekli is in a different league of importance - and fragility. Exquisitely carved pillars unearthed entirely intact. Dating from the ice age
They can be smashed and will not be easily repaired. And will never be the same
Oh I agree it is a different magnitude. I was only using Avebury as an example of how things can be repaired and reconstructed. Many of the stones at Avebury weren't only knocked over and buried they were burnt and smashed at the same time and have been put back together again since the 1930s. Like you I hope GT and the other sites have survived intact but I am far more concerned about the pre ceramic Neolithic stuff over the border in Syria which was being systematically destroyed by the Islamic State. I have been loosely involved in the projects there for several years because I own Max Mallowan's library and many of his original notebooks from the excavations in the 1930s so the whole area holds a very special interest for me.
Hi everyone, just dropping by to say I'm not dead, just in case you were all missing me and my face palm dead certs that fall over trying to negotiate exiting the stalls. Missing the banter, but im afraid mentally im in a very fragile place and have been for some months, so im avoiding anything that may end up triggering, even totally innocently. Hope to be back some time. I dont think ive even logged on since my last check in so if anyone has been dragged outside and shot or tarred and feathered for group amusement sadly i missed it. By which i mean proper people, not the bot army. Anyway i hope you are all well and FWIW, my central forecast is currently Labour a handful short, something like a GE day vote of 41 Lab 32/33 Con, but upper end 45 30 and chaos in the shires
Starmer found a reason to expel Corbyn from the PLP. That is why noone fears a Corbynista comeback. He has crushed them as a political force.
On his first day as PM Sunak should have taken a leaf out of Johnson's book and chucked Johnson and 5 or 10 of his most craven sycophants out.
It had risks but it was probably his best (or maybe his only) chance of turning the page and having an opportunity of retaining power at the GE.
Because even if Lab miss out on a majority if Starmer walks into No 10 then that is a defeat. Full stop. Ask Gordon Brown or the ghost of Ted Heath about how the other side not getting a majority counts as a 'good defeat'. Corbyn coud claim it for a while but with hindsight it doesn't look so good does it?
Starmer found a reason to expel Corbyn from the PLP. That is why noone fears a Corbynista comeback. He has crushed them as a political force.
On his first day as PM Sunak should have taken a leaf out of Johnson's book and chucked Johnson and 5 or 10 of his most craven sycophants out.
It had risks but it was probably his best (or maybe his only) chance of turning the page and having an opportunity of retaining power at the GE.
Because even if Lab miss out on a majority if Starmer walks into No 10 then that is a defeat. Full stop. Ask Gordon Brown or the ghost of Ted Heath about how the other side not getting a majority counts as a 'good defeat'. Corbyn coud claim it for a while but with hindsight it doesn't look so good does it?
That's totally unrealistic.
Corbyn never had strong support among Labour MPs, whereas Johnson retains it still among Conservatives. Starmer has control over Labour power structures, while Sunak is on probation as far as the 1922 is concerned. And Johnson never gave the strong reason that Corbyn's approach on antisemitism did.
Starmer correctly judged he could deal with the Corbyn problem by freezing him out. Sunak correctly judged he can't deal with the Johnson problem in that way.
Comments
@SnkBrs m 7.8 earthquake epicenter approx 120 miles from gobekli tepe
Where’s the legislative agenda for the next two years, what’s his vision for the future of the country?
Now they are exposed. Time to pray to Allah and Zoroaster and the Peacock Angel of the Yazidi
Not good for the country. but the politics works.
Watching the building opposite move quite considerably relative to yours, as the ground feels funny and the lights start swinging, is what happens in bad dreams and earthquakes.
You're probably right Blanche, shoddy journalism... but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with more teachers giving out toothbrushes than noticed children lacking access to them.
E.g. Half the class seem to lack access to toothbrushes - rather than expose some to shame and ridicule, since I've got enough, I'll give one to everyone in this class.
If in doubt, why not give them out?
says epicenter is Gaziantep which is 150 k or 90 miles
Fun fact: the towns are really Antep and Urfa, plus honorifics meaning heroic and glorious respectively
FF2 urfa is also Edessa, as in "County of Edessa" in crusading times, and Osroene.
I doubt we have accurate information to be precise on the source but he has correctly put a limit on it
Does anyone know when the Privileges Committee inquiry will complete? Why is it taking so long?
Philip Cowley
@philipjcowley
Far too late now, I guess. But Liz Truss doesn't actually use the phrase 'left-wing economic establishment' anywhere in that Telegraph piece...
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1622518598278184962
Rishi has a very very narrow path to winning but it’s not impossible
Starmer is less attractive than Blair, but even in 1997 Major was a bigger asset for the Conservatives than Sunak is now.
So they're saying that five percent of teachers didn't notice a shortage, but thought they'd just give them out anyway
Or just being lax with numbers
Yes, I’m in that small remaining group who thought that she was completely right to try and put a rocket under the economy after the events of the last few years - and highlighted during the leadership campaign in the summer, that the “Sunakites” in the PCP and beyond gave the impression of not wanting to accept the result of the contest going against them.
It has a good claim to being the most historically astonishing city on earth. Indeed I’d say it is
Maybe also the OLDEST
If you’ve never been. GO. Tho maybe wait a few weeks
If they revert back to type so easily, did they really change?
It seems to me that if they were in opposition right now we'd be talking about them never governing again.
Major was an effective campaigner against Kinnock in 1992, much less so against Blair in 1997 and Starmer is still no Blair in terms of appeal to Middle England
They can be smashed and will not be easily repaired. And will never be the same
It seems City losing to Spurs yesterday is the least of their problems
'Man City charged by Premier League for numerous alleged financial breaches'
https://www.skysports.com/share/12804577
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64536785
It was the collapse of the Liberal vote, particularly to the Tories and higher turnout that put Thatcher in No 10. Not switchers from Labour
I’m about 300km from where there have been earthquakes in Iran, we get a couple of them a year. April 2013 was the big one, a 7.7 that was 500km away.
https://gulfbusiness.com/breaking-earthquake-in-dubai-no-official-details-yet/
I too love Avebury. It's a far more pleasant - and accessible - place than the hideous hellhole that EH have turned Stonehenge into.
But I also love The Sanctuary, at the end of the Avenue from Avebury, because you go there and there are no stones left. Yet when Aubrey went there in the 1600s. some stones were still standing. It shows how little these places were cared for in the post-medieval times. I see it as a salutatory warning.
It's also interesting how little of Hadrian's Wall might be left, were it not for John Clayton in Victorian times.
It was this that caused his PTSD and mental health breakdown, which he is only now beginning to recover from
Between 2010 and 2014 there were 11,200 aftershocks in Christchurch and Canterbury
https://www.icnz.org.nz/industry/canterbury-earthquakes/#:~:text=One of the world's largest,of Christchurch and surrounding towns.
Anyway i hope you are all well and FWIW, my central forecast is currently Labour a handful short, something like a GE day vote of 41 Lab 32/33 Con, but upper end 45 30 and chaos in the shires
75% of teachers have spotted an issue
80% of teachers have given products out
Options:
- they have been instructed to hand out even though they haven’t spotted an issue (eg a TA in a class where a teacher spots the issue or vice versa)
- They are filling in a boring survey and ticking boxes randomly
Take care 👍
You are totally correct to protect your mental health and in life there is a lot more than politics
All the best
Labour increased its vote by 100k, and the Liberals lost a million votes. But Thatcher's Conservatives gained 3 million votes - so 2 million people who had been sitting on their hands since the 1970 election came out to give the incumbents a kicking. Non-voters turning out was the most significant single component - and that is *not* analogous to the current situation. In 2019 non-voters from the previous 2 elections came out to make sure that Corbyn didn't get elected (and we had ~29m votes for the 3 main parties in England).
Sunak's allies really are quite a fetid bunch aren't they? They were briefing like this all through Liz Truss's premiership, now the woman comes out from the backbenches, doesn’t even criticise Sunak directly, and they do an encore.
She was and is an unmitigated disaster for the country and the conservative party and yes, a total embarrassment
"The public were warned not to approach the patient, who was described as 'delusional'."
NEW THREAD
Death is too nice for them - not that I’d complain too much if the lynch mob got there first.
On his first day as PM Sunak should have taken a leaf out of Johnson's book and chucked Johnson and 5 or 10 of his most craven sycophants out.
It had risks but it was probably his best (or maybe his only) chance of turning the page and having an opportunity of retaining power at the GE.
Because even if Lab miss out on a majority if Starmer walks into No 10 then that is a defeat. Full stop. Ask Gordon Brown or the ghost of Ted Heath about how the other side not getting a majority counts as a 'good defeat'. Corbyn coud claim it for a while but with hindsight it doesn't look so good does it?
Corbyn never had strong support among Labour MPs, whereas Johnson retains it still among Conservatives. Starmer has control over Labour power structures, while Sunak is on probation as far as the 1922 is concerned. And Johnson never gave the strong reason that Corbyn's approach on antisemitism did.
Starmer correctly judged he could deal with the Corbyn problem by freezing him out. Sunak correctly judged he can't deal with the Johnson problem in that way.