Somewhat off-topic, but has anyone else noticed some BBC news stories starting to have slightly jarring explainers of why or what they are referencing. I've noticed it a few times now and came across another one today. I've wondered if it's a reaction to being bombarded with "OMG why did you mention what *that person* said?!?!?!".
"UK economy avoids recession but not out of woods - Hunt ... The Bank of England still expects the UK to enter recession this year.
But it thinks it will be shorter and less severe than previously forecast.
The Bank of England is the UK's central bank. The BBC included its view as it has a central role in managing the overall state of the economy. ... Mr Hunt, who the BBC spoke to for the government's position, said that high inflation remains a problem and continues to cause "pain for families up and down the country"."
That's good. The BBC has had a habit for years of false balance, notoriously on climate change: 99% of scientists believe it and 1% don't (Professor Sid Bonkers from the University of Neasden), but the BBC keeps inviting Professor Bonkers on so that "the other side of the story" is aired. If they're starting to think about their choices of talking heads and be prepared to defend them, that's progress.
All polling should be ignored until such time as we can factor in the Anderson Bounce. The lower classes and that lot up north have the adoration of him in their DNA. While his presence probably won't secure the Tories a Boris/Brexit landslide, a workable Tory majority is now more likely than any time since the Truss revolution was in its pomp.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
The other thing is that beergate was in late spring 2021 when lockdown restrictions were being wound down and the majority had been vaccinated. Pub gardens were open for meals by then for example. Johnsons party culture was from the very beginning, because he never follows the rules, not even his own.
When was Starmer calling for more restrictions and lockdowns?
Here's a useful timeline of the restrictins. Note there's nothing in April 2021 for "getting pissed and having a curry indoors with people from around the country."
You do seem a bit obsessed with currygate. Isn't the key point that, for whatever reason, the police found that Starmer had no case to answer? So I assume you believe the police got it wrong, although they would have been under immense pressure to give Starmer an FPN if appropriate?
You also rather give the game away when you substitute 'drinking a can of beer' for 'getting pissed', I think. No evidence for the latter.
Given the shambles that the elections will be in May with photo I.D. , I'm wondering whether this policy could be reversed before then (will be sold as a grace period no doubt)? Any rumours of this?
Why are LDs so low in the polls? It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
They've struggled for relevance ever since they lost third party status in the Commons. It's much harder for their leader to get airtime.
So people, in numbers, are switching CP to LP?
Not consistent with my anecdotal evidence here - but then again I'm in the Midlands and we seem out of kilter with the rest of the country.
The most significant switching at present, I think, is C > won't vote, with C>LD switchers being more or less matched by LD>L switchers-back post-Corbyn.
Why are LDs so low in the polls? It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
They've struggled for relevance ever since they lost third party status in the Commons. It's much harder for their leader to get airtime.
Largely because, in the immortal phrase of PB, Ed Is Crap. It's just a different crap Ed this time round.
To an extent, perhaps. But back in the days when I watched TV evening news, on Wednesdays they always showed what the LD leader asked at PMQs. They can't do that now.
This is a lawsuit waiting to happen if the GRR Bill becomes law. It’s one thing to place a legal man into a men’s prison, but if you place a legal woman into a men’s prison eventually one of them will sue claiming this is disproportionate.
Why are LDs so low in the polls? It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
They've struggled for relevance ever since they lost third party status in the Commons. It's much harder for their leader to get airtime.
So people, in numbers, are switching CP to LP?
Not consistent with my anecdotal evidence here - but then again I'm in the Midlands and we seem out of kilter with the rest of the country.
The most significant switching at present, I think, is C > won't vote, with C>LD switchers being more or less matched by LD>L switchers-back post-Corbyn.
But the percentages given in the poll below implies only 5% don't knows.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Except that millions of pounds of public money were spent on a police enquiry, who could come up with nothing more than a civil servant inviting people working in No.10 into the boardroom to wish the boss a happy birthday.
LOL, drunken orgies every night is portrayed as a quick wish the boss happy birthday
I've drawn parallels with 1997 in the current polls in terms of stay at home Tories being the biggest factor and advances in the Labour vote from Tories and from Corbyn/Kinnock abstainers behind that, but asides from the different starting position, I think there are two important differences:
1. If a Labour victory is delivered on mass Tory abstention as in 1997, it's important to note the demographic changes in the Tory vote. The elderly would tend to be less abstentious, but the migration of the Tory vote to lower social class elderly voters might counteract that somewhat. No doubt a significant chunk of Tory 19 vote will simply fail to turn out, but the exact scale of that is a central question.
2. LD to Labour switching: The LDs whilst gaining seats lost 0.75m votes in 1997, but electorally were still scoring 15-20% as a norm in many ordinary Labour seats. Now, the LD vote is much more focused on areas on strength, and they typically sit below 5% where they are not seen as competitive.
One bit of the MRPs I simply do not believe is that a Tory near wipeout but with LD only gaining a dozen or so seats is even possible. I think the crossover level between LD & Con seat totals is likely above 50 in a Tory armageddon and, given that is the case, the window for SNP to be the official opposition, rather than Tory or Lib Dem, is very narrow. In other words a Tory collapse to me benefits the Lib Dems more than the analyses suggest
In the polls at the moment you have a very large proportion of 2019 Lib Dem voters switching to Labour. Some of that will come to pass - Corbyn will have put off a lot of voters who choose to vote Lib Dem instead - but a fair chunk of those voters might end up deciding that they live in a seat that only the Lib Dems have a chance of taking from the Tories and vote accordingly.
Those tactical choices will largely be factored in already. And there still aren't that many seats where the LDs are in play, so the impact of any further tactical choices in boosting the LD aggregate vote will be limited. At the last GE they led in 11 and were in 2nd place in 91, well up on 2017 but still a small proportion of 650. And that was when Labour was polling far below what the party is now. And to offset that there could be late tactical choices to vote Labour in other seats that will diminish the LD vote.
On topic: Of Rishi Sunak’s many problems I think the fundamental one, making all the others that much harder to solve, is the lack of mandate. He has a mandate technically of course, the Conservatives have a strong majority from the last election and he’s the leader of the Conservative Party, but as an accountant (chartered) I apply ‘substance over form’ and on this basis he has no right to be there. Not because of the polls, it's absurd to claim a government behind in the polls has lost its mandate, but because of the peculiar nature of the 2019 election.
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
You got your devilish head on today? We elect a party (via a local party candidate) not a PM. You were arguing for Johnson to go, after all.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
'Liked' apart from the cretins bit. Thinking Scotland has been let down by the UK Government isn't cretinous - it's just that everywhere has too.
The cretin was the idiot that posted that imaginary anecdotal mince. apart from the Greens bit , that was to get even more weirdo's for her half baked schemes.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
The other thing is that beergate was in late spring 2021 when lockdown restrictions were being wound down and the majority had been vaccinated. Pub gardens were open for meals by then for example. Johnsons party culture was from the very beginning, because he never follows the rules, not even his own.
When was Starmer calling for more restrictions and lockdowns?
Here's a useful timeline of the restrictins. Note there's nothing in April 2021 for "getting pissed and having a curry indoors with people from around the country."
You do seem a bit obsessed with currygate. Isn't the key point that, for whatever reason, the police found that Starmer had no case to answer? So I assume you believe the police got it wrong, although they would have been under immense pressure to give Starmer an FPN if appropriate?
You also rather give the game away when you substitute 'drinking a can of beer' for 'getting pissed', I think. No evidence for the latter.
"A bit obsessed"?
I'm pretty certain I've not mentioned it since the case was closed, so you've got a slightly odd definition of 'obsessed'. In which case, it's a rather telling choice of work for you to use.
I do believe at least one person got pissed at the party, or so it was reported?
From memory, Starmer wanted stronger restrictions at virtually every stage of Covid, and regularly criticised the government for not having stronger / earlier restrictions. He travelled up north to campaign (this was fine IMV) He then got together with people from all over the country, in a crowded room, had food and drinks. It was not necessary, and could have been avoided. He knew the restrictions; he was even unsure whether he had broken them. The virus did not care whether the law was broken or not.
IMV what Starmer did was worse than what happened at No. 10, particularly in terms of spreading the virus. And that's what mattered.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
You always see this with single issue parties, you get nutjobs. See UKIP and the Brexit Party.
Oh Dear and that from a Labour supporter, my irony meter just burst and I cannot stop laughing.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
You always see this with single issue parties, you get nutjobs. See UKIP and the Brexit Party.
Yes. The fun bit is how they twist reality to so that their favourite things all line up.
In the case above - oil that makes your country rich, but doesn’t emit CO2. Somehow.
I’ve had people claiming that all we need to do, to solve housing is to
- Seize empty flats owned by Citizens of Nowhere
Or
- Seize second homes
etc
Pointing out that the problem is orders of magnitude bigger than that gets them angry. Since that implies building more homes. And development is BAD.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
'Liked' apart from the cretins bit. Thinking Scotland has been let down by the UK Government isn't cretinous - it's just that everywhere has too.
The cretin was the idiot that posted that imaginary anecdotal mince. apart from the Greens bit , that was to get even more weirdo's for her half baked schemes.
At least one Green MSP was arguing for GRR 16 year old to be much lower. Maybe 8. See below. And note that she is taking about sex not gender. Unbelievable.
On topic: Of Rishi Sunak’s many problems I think the fundamental one, making all the others that much harder to solve, is the lack of mandate. He has a mandate technically of course, the Conservatives have a strong majority from the last election and he’s the leader of the Conservative Party, but as an accountant (chartered) I apply ‘substance over form’ and on this basis he has no right to be there. Not because of the polls, it's absurd to claim a government behind in the polls has lost its mandate, but because of the peculiar nature of the 2019 election.
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
You got your devilish head on today? We elect a party (via a local party candidate) not a PM. You were arguing for Johnson to go, after all.
"Illegitimate" isn't quite the right word it's more that it has "run out of voter-approved legislative programme".
People voting positively for Boris Johnson will be one of those things that I will never understand, his character was known about well in advance and it was obvious what would happen.
Of course, it is our fault for putting up Jezza against him.
The last sentence shows, I think, that you do get it: to most floating voters, even though Boris was bad, Corbyn was worse.
For many voters, Boris had seemed OK as Mayor, so not too bad.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
The other thing is that beergate was in late spring 2021 when lockdown restrictions were being wound down and the majority had been vaccinated. Pub gardens were open for meals by then for example. Johnsons party culture was from the very beginning, because he never follows the rules, not even his own.
When was Starmer calling for more restrictions and lockdowns?
Here's a useful timeline of the restrictins. Note there's nothing in April 2021 for "getting pissed and having a curry indoors with people from around the country."
You do seem a bit obsessed with currygate. Isn't the key point that, for whatever reason, the police found that Starmer had no case to answer? So I assume you believe the police got it wrong, although they would have been under immense pressure to give Starmer an FPN if appropriate?
You also rather give the game away when you substitute 'drinking a can of beer' for 'getting pissed', I think. No evidence for the latter.
No mention of shagging or being sent out with suitcases to the off licence.
Why are LDs so low in the polls? It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
Invisible nationally.
Which is precisely the basis for an expectation that they will outperform the polls in a GE.
While this is generally net bad news for the Tories on a "tactical voting" basis, it will inevitably unwind a couple of expected Labour victories because local Red/Yellow enmity will split the vote, as is (depressingly) familiar.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
'Liked' apart from the cretins bit. Thinking Scotland has been let down by the UK Government isn't cretinous - it's just that everywhere has too.
The cretin was the idiot that posted that imaginary anecdotal mince. apart from the Greens bit , that was to get even more weirdo's for her half baked schemes.
At least one Green MSP was arguing for GRR 16 year old to be much lower. Maybe 8. See below. And note that she is taking about sex not gender. Unbelievable.
People voting positively for Boris Johnson will be one of those things that I will never understand, his character was known about well in advance and it was obvious what would happen.
Of course, it is our fault for putting up Jezza against him.
The last sentence shows, I think, that you do get it: to most floating voters, even though Boris was bad, Corbyn was worse.
For many voters, Boris had seemed OK as Mayor, so not too bad.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
'Liked' apart from the cretins bit. Thinking Scotland has been let down by the UK Government isn't cretinous - it's just that everywhere has too.
The cretin was the idiot that posted that imaginary anecdotal mince. apart from the Greens bit , that was to get even more weirdo's for her half baked schemes.
I’ve encountered weirder twisting of reality to match the beliefs/desires of the person.
Quite a few Corbynites are still aggressively certain that Corbyn is (and always was) a hard core, full bore Remainer.
Why are LDs so low in the polls? It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
Invisible nationally.
The greens are invisible nationally too, as are REF. But the difference is those are parties someone will name in a poll in order to say something about where they are ideologically. When people say REF they don’t really mean there’s going to vote for Tice’s lot in the real thing (they’ll go Tory or not vote), they mean “I don’t like immigration” or “I’m anti vax” or “I hate wokery and green crap”. When they say green they really mean “I’m a virtuous person who likes to be kind to nature”.
The Lib Dems are not really an ideological vote (not since Brexit second referendum lost salience). So spontaneous naming of them in a poll is unlikely for otherwise Labour or green inclined voters who will go tactically LD in an election.
They are routinely outperforming polling in local by-elections so I think they’ll do ok in May, though it’s a shame the comparator will be a very strong showing in 2019.
What the party really needs is a by-election in a blue wall Tory seat.
All polling should be ignored until such time as we can factor in the Anderson Bounce. The lower classes and that lot up north have the adoration of him in their DNA. While his presence probably won't secure the Tories a Boris/Brexit landslide, a workable Tory majority is now more likely than any time since the Truss revolution was in its pomp.
Why are LDs so low in the polls? It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
Invisible nationally.
The greens are invisible nationally too, as are REF. But the difference is those are parties someone will name in a poll in order to say something about where they are ideologically. When people say REF they don’t really mean there’s going to vote for Tice’s lot in the real thing (they’ll go Tory or not vote), they mean “I don’t like immigration” or “I’m anti vax” or “I hate wokery and green crap”. When they say green they really mean “I’m a virtuous person who likes to be kind to nature”.
The Lib Dems are not really an ideological vote (not since Brexit second referendum lost salience). So spontaneous naming of them in a poll is unlikely for otherwise Labour or green inclined voters who will go tactically LD in an election.
They are routinely outperforming polling in local by-elections so I think they’ll do ok in May, though it’s a shame the comparator will be a very strong showing in 2019.
What the party really needs is a by-election in a blue wall Tory seat.
The Greens get 2 things
1) when environmental issues are in the news, debated by the other parties, they get name checked, in effect. Bit like the Tesla effect - when an auto company runs an EV ad, a bump in sales of Teslas follows.
2) they are Spare Labour for the Starmer Is A Tory types.
There aren't any simple answers to this, particularly given Ireland's tax haven for multinationals tendency, but it's a further step in the erosion of our manufacturing base. And only idiots like Minford believe we can exist solely on services.
Ukraine claiming to have shot down 61 out of 71 cruise missiles today. There hadn't been an attack for a while, presumably whilst Russia built up enough stocks. Those cruise missiles aren't cheap and the interception rate is now very high!
The AFU shot down 61 of 71 cruise missiles of various types (Kh-101, Kh-555, Kalibr) used by the enemy during the attack today. Also 5 Shahed drones were destroyed.
Ukraine claiming to have shot down 61 out of 71 cruise missiles today. There hadn't been an attack for a while, presumably whilst Russia built up enough stocks. Those cruise missiles aren't cheap and the interception rate is now very high!
The AFU shot down 61 of 71 cruise missiles of various types (Kh-101, Kh-555, Kalibr) used by the enemy during the attack today. Also 5 Shahed drones were destroyed.
Historically, that is what you’d expect. By the end of the V1 campaign against the U.K. virtually none were getting through. Tuning of the defences, practice etc.
Unlike manned aircraft, the tactics for missiles are limited.
On topic: Of Rishi Sunak’s many problems I think the fundamental one, making all the others that much harder to solve, is the lack of mandate. He has a mandate technically of course, the Conservatives have a strong majority from the last election and he’s the leader of the Conservative Party, but as an accountant (chartered) I apply ‘substance over form’ and on this basis he has no right to be there. Not because of the polls, it's absurd to claim a government behind in the polls has lost its mandate, but because of the peculiar nature of the 2019 election.
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
You got your devilish head on today? We elect a party (via a local party candidate) not a PM. You were arguing for Johnson to go, after all.
No, that was a calm collected one. I said there's a technical mandate and there is. But think back to that 2019 election and ask yourself what's left from the factors which drove the result. Nothing. Johnson as PM was the last thing and that went when he did. Course this doesn't mean I wanted him to stay. God no. Nevertheless from the viewpoint of their mandate from the last election, and also their chances of avoiding a landslide defeat at the next one, they probably should have kept him.
Yesterday I got a real feel why some people are so angry about partygate. We had a really easy lockdown. Yesterday we heard a horrific story from a friend we had lost contact with. It is not appropriate to post all the details here, but the long term isolation and loss of life involved without being able to see those dying and without those dying (a married couple) being able to see each other was heart breaking. I haven't heard a worse story.
Indeed so, which is why the narrative of “parties” was so damaging. Irrespective of the actual details of the events in question, and definitely ignoring what the media set on bringing down the PM were up to themselves at the time.
The narrative was so damaging because the events in question were parties, it’s not fcuking rocket science.
Most weren't parties, they were exactly the same as Starmer having a curry and drink that time.
Some were parties - I have not seen evidence that Johnson was at those ones (i.e. the night before the Duke's funeral - Johnson was at Chequers).
The thing about Starmer's stupidity up north is this: the virus didn't care if their meeting up, having a curry and getting pissed was legal or not. The virus didn't check the rules and regulations and then say: "Ah, that's okay." It was as stupid - IMV more stupid, because of the travel - than the things BJ and others were done for.
But no-one gives a toss about what Starmer was or wasn't doing. It's the hypocrisy that pissed people off. It was Johnson who was telling people to socially distance while completely disregarding his own instructions.
LOL. I forgot that you speak for everyone. I give a toss about what Starmer did, as it was an effing stupid thing to do.
You are completely missing the point. What Starmer did may have been stupid, but he wasn't the one making the rules. Many, possibly even most, people broke the rules at some point, some more egregiously than others. That is annoying for those people who followed the rules, but it is nothing like as infuriating as rule-breaking by those who were, at the time time, warning us to follow the rules. Most people hate hypocrisy, and they don't forget it either.
I have not missed the point, either partially or completely. I understand your point, but think it's... misdirected (*). Starmer is the LOTO. He did not argue against the rules. I believe he voted for them. ——
Indeed, Starmer argued for tighter measures, longer lockdowns.
On topic: Of Rishi Sunak’s many problems I think the fundamental one, making all the others that much harder to solve, is the lack of mandate. He has a mandate technically of course, the Conservatives have a strong majority from the last election and he’s the leader of the Conservative Party, but as an accountant (chartered) I apply ‘substance over form’ and on this basis he has no right to be there. Not because of the polls, it's absurd to claim a government behind in the polls has lost its mandate, but because of the peculiar nature of the 2019 election.
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
You got your devilish head on today? We elect a party (via a local party candidate) not a PM. You were arguing for Johnson to go, after all.
"Illegitimate" isn't quite the right word it's more that it has "run out of voter-approved legislative programme".
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
'Liked' apart from the cretins bit. Thinking Scotland has been let down by the UK Government isn't cretinous - it's just that everywhere has too.
The cretin was the idiot that posted that imaginary anecdotal mince. apart from the Greens bit , that was to get even more weirdo's for her half baked schemes.
I’ve encountered weirder twisting of reality to match the beliefs/desires of the person.
Quite a few Corbynites are still aggressively certain that Corbyn is (and always was) a hard core, full bore Remainer.
That's nothing, wait till you hear about the people who think Boris Johnstone did stuff out of principle rather than self interest.
It appears they’re not when charged with child abduction, but are when charged with assault:
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “A 35-year-old woman has been charged in connection with an alleged assault which occurred at a demonstration in George Square, Edinburgh on Wednesday, December 14, 2022.
“A report will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.”
Why are LDs so low in the polls? It's a bit of a head-scratcher.
Invisible nationally.
The greens are invisible nationally too, as are REF. But the difference is those are parties someone will name in a poll in order to say something about where they are ideologically. When people say REF they don’t really mean there’s going to vote for Tice’s lot in the real thing (they’ll go Tory or not vote), they mean “I don’t like immigration” or “I’m anti vax” or “I hate wokery and green crap”. When they say green they really mean “I’m a virtuous person who likes to be kind to nature”.
The Lib Dems are not really an ideological vote (not since Brexit second referendum lost salience). So spontaneous naming of them in a poll is unlikely for otherwise Labour or green inclined voters who will go tactically LD in an election.
They are routinely outperforming polling in local by-elections so I think they’ll do ok in May, though it’s a shame the comparator will be a very strong showing in 2019.
What the party really needs is a by-election in a blue wall Tory seat.
Far be it from me to intrude upon private grief, but isn't the Lib Dems main problem Ed Davey? Worthy though he is, he has a rare ability to make even Keir Starmer look mildly interesting. His performances in the Commons are distinctly underwhelming, and I see no sign of him carving out a distinctive niche that says 'this is what the LDs stand for, and I embody it'. I genuinely believe most of the public wouldn't recognise him by sight, and don't have a clue who he is.
His leadership doesn't stop the LDs performing exceptionally well in by-elections, but is a barrier to their progress in national polling and, by extension, general elections.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
Far be it from me to intrude upon private grief, but isn't the Lib Dems main problem Ed Davey? Worthy though he is, he has a rare ability to make even Keir Starmer look mildly interesting. His performances in the Commons are distinctly underwhelming, and I see no sign of him carving out a distinctive niche that says 'this is what the LDs stand for, and I embody it'. I genuinely believe most of the public wouldn't recognise him by sight, and don't have a clue who he is.
It's worse than that. In the midst of a housing affordability crisis, the LibDems called for Government subsidies for mortgage holders. In the midst of a climate crisis and a move to electric vehicles, they called for (wait for it) stronger action on catalytic converter thefts.
Their political antennae, nationally, are misfunctioning wildly and the buck has to stop with Ed Davey. In local government, and in the heat of a by-election campaign, they can still pull off victories. But as a national party standing for Westminster seats, there's nothing going on.
It appears they’re not when charged with child abduction, but are when charged with assault:
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “A 35-year-old woman has been charged in connection with an alleged assault which occurred at a demonstration in George Square, Edinburgh on Wednesday, December 14, 2022.
“A report will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.”
Yes. Soon they'll be back to "Starmer chose not to prosecute Jimmy Savile".
That’s unfair. He didn’t make the decision, he merely led the organisation that made the decision.
Apparently Boris is supposed to be held responsible for what civil servants did in Number Ten when he was at Chequers, but Sir Keir isn't supposed to be responsible for the actions of the CPS when he was DPP.
It appears they’re not when charged with child abduction, but are when charged with assault:
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “A 35-year-old woman has been charged in connection with an alleged assault which occurred at a demonstration in George Square, Edinburgh on Wednesday, December 14, 2022.
“A report will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.”
This is now going to be a story any time any trans person is arrested for anything. What a mess.
Getting someone's gender in accord with what the criminal wants is more important and newsworthy than the crime don't you know. It's a mad, mad word. Call me "she" if you like - I don't care. There is more than a hint of narcissism, preciousness and sheer childishness in all this.
On topic: Of Rishi Sunak’s many problems I think the fundamental one, making all the others that much harder to solve, is the lack of mandate. He has a mandate technically of course, the Conservatives have a strong majority from the last election and he’s the leader of the Conservative Party, but as an accountant (chartered) I apply ‘substance over form’ and on this basis he has no right to be there. Not because of the polls, it's absurd to claim a government behind in the polls has lost its mandate, but because of the peculiar nature of the 2019 election.
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
You got your devilish head on today? We elect a party (via a local party candidate) not a PM. You were arguing for Johnson to go, after all.
No, that was a calm collected one. I said there's a technical mandate and there is. But think back to that 2019 election and ask yourself what's left from the factors which drove the result. Nothing. Johnson as PM was the last thing and that went when he did. Course this doesn't mean I wanted him to stay. God no. Nevertheless from the viewpoint of their mandate from the last election, and also their chances of avoiding a landslide defeat at the next one, they probably should have kept him.
They sure should have kept him. A bunch of hindsight in that, of course, but I think those that wanted rid - inc me and you - knew that deep down.
Ukraine claiming to have shot down 61 out of 71 cruise missiles today. There hadn't been an attack for a while, presumably whilst Russia built up enough stocks. Those cruise missiles aren't cheap and the interception rate is now very high!
The AFU shot down 61 of 71 cruise missiles of various types (Kh-101, Kh-555, Kalibr) used by the enemy during the attack today. Also 5 Shahed drones were destroyed.
Historically, that is what you’d expect. By the end of the V1 campaign against the U.K. virtually none were getting through. Tuning of the defences, practice etc.
Unlike manned aircraft, the tactics for missiles are limited.
Incidentally, I believe at least one Russian missile that crashed was shown to have been retrofitted with flare dispensers, so they are trying to react. Though I'm unsure flares would do a massive amount of good.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
'Liked' apart from the cretins bit. Thinking Scotland has been let down by the UK Government isn't cretinous - it's just that everywhere has too.
The cretin was the idiot that posted that imaginary anecdotal mince. apart from the Greens bit , that was to get even more weirdo's for her half baked schemes.
At least one Green MSP was arguing for GRR 16 year old to be much lower. Maybe 8. See below. And note that she is taking about sex not gender. Unbelievable.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
It appears they’re not when charged with child abduction, but are when charged with assault:
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “A 35-year-old woman has been charged in connection with an alleged assault which occurred at a demonstration in George Square, Edinburgh on Wednesday, December 14, 2022.
“A report will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.”
This is now going to be a story any time any trans person is arrested for anything. What a mess.
The Scottish Government GRR bill, and I believe that the Greens are behind it, with Sturgeon’s support, has actually damaged Trans rights. How incompetent is that?
Yes. Soon they'll be back to "Starmer chose not to prosecute Jimmy Savile".
That’s unfair. He didn’t make the decision, he merely led the organisation that made the decision.
Apparently Boris is supposed to be held responsible for what civil servants did in Number Ten when he was at Chequers, but Sir Keir isn't supposed to be responsible for the actions of the CPS when he was DPP.
On topic: Of Rishi Sunak’s many problems I think the fundamental one, making all the others that much harder to solve, is the lack of mandate. He has a mandate technically of course, the Conservatives have a strong majority from the last election and he’s the leader of the Conservative Party, but as an accountant (chartered) I apply ‘substance over form’ and on this basis he has no right to be there. Not because of the polls, it's absurd to claim a government behind in the polls has lost its mandate, but because of the peculiar nature of the 2019 election.
The policy mandate boiled down to the act of leaving the EU and this was extinguished on delivery since there was no vision for what post Brexit Britain should look like. The other driver of the election result was the 2 party leaders. Lots of people voted to kill off Jeremy Corbyn as a serious proposition, which is done, no ongoing mandate there either. That leaves Boris Johnson. It’s hard to credit but many voted positively for him in 2019, they liked him and wanted him as PM. Johnson as PM was the only residual meaningful mandate from the 2019 GE and it bit the dust when he was ousted. What’s left? Nothing. The government is essentially illegitimate, I think they know it, and I think this severely hampers any sort of recovery.
You got your devilish head on today? We elect a party (via a local party candidate) not a PM. You were arguing for Johnson to go, after all.
Of course you are absolutely right, technically. But voters don't always behave in line with constitutional niceties, and I think that Kinabalu has identified part of Sunak's problem - one of the factors undermining his standing with the public. Also, the fact that Johnson had a personal mandate that Sunak lacks doesn't outweigh the reality that Johnson had lied several times too often to stay in the role.
Yes. Soon they'll be back to "Starmer chose not to prosecute Jimmy Savile".
That’s unfair. He didn’t make the decision, he merely led the organisation that made the decision.
Apparently Boris is supposed to be held responsible for what civil servants did in Number Ten when he was at Chequers, but Sir Keir isn't supposed to be responsible for the actions of the CPS when he was DPP.
Was out on a run and had a bit of an epiphany - I was generally baffled by the SNP/Green coalition, couldn't see why Sturgeon would go for it unless she really believed in Green policies.
But perhaps she brought them into government just to expose a few inexperienced Green ministers to parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining them? Closes off the threat from the left.
The agreement is because she otherwise she wouldn't have a majority. It wasn't and still isn't called a coalition because the Greens enjoy trousering Short money as a so-called "opposition" party. Why did she bring some of their clowns into government? A way of giving the Greens and the interests behind them some more money. I.e. not just money but a shovel with which they can scoop it into their pockets. Cultists can recognise and appreciate other cultists. And she's bound to sell the line "Scotland's greener than England" when it comes to it. It makes sense brandwise. Don't underestimate either the stupidity of the electorate or the cultiness of these two parties. I've heard a middle class well-educated nationalist insist that I was a complete idiot for daring to say that Scottish oil, just like Arab oil and Venezuelan oil, etc., mostly goes for transport fuel. He insisted that he knew someone who worked in oil and that he was pretty sure that most of lovely Scotland's lovely oil went to make pharmaceuticals. He spoke as if I deserved to have my mouth washed out with a scrubbing brush. And this was an educated man, a graduate. The nationalists and Greens get along well because their main target markets are complete cretins, which is not true of the three main unionist parties.
'Liked' apart from the cretins bit. Thinking Scotland has been let down by the UK Government isn't cretinous - it's just that everywhere has too.
The cretin was the idiot that posted that imaginary anecdotal mince. apart from the Greens bit , that was to get even more weirdo's for her half baked schemes.
At least one Green MSP was arguing for GRR 16 year old to be much lower. Maybe 8. See below. And note that she is taking about sex not gender. Unbelievable.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
And it shows an ignorance of the law of workers rights and what's involved in campaigning.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
Not the whole story though was it. Starmer very astutely raised the stakes with his 'I'll resign if fined' schtick. So the plod had the choice of no case to asnwer vs bringing down the LOTO over a trivial offence, and blinked.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
I love the way brainless Labourites respond to the first mention of something by someone with accusations of obsession. I've answered that below, but I might suggest you up your game a little.
let me ask a little question; a useful one in many circumstances. How would you have responded if it was the other way around? If it had been a Conservative LOTO in the same situation? Come now, be honest.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
And it shows an ignorance of the law of workers rights and what's involved in campaigning.
No, not in the least. Starmer was calling for harder lockdowns; if he had wanted to keep people safe then he should have organised things so the event was not needed.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
Not the whole story though was it. Starmer very astutely raised the stakes with his 'I'll resign if fined' schtick. So the plod had the choice of no case to asnwer vs bringing down the LOTO over a trivial offence, and blinked.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
I love the way brainless Labourites respond to the first mention of something by someone with accusations of obsession. I've answered that below, but I might suggest you up your game a little.
let me ask a little question; a useful one in many circumstances. How would you have responded if it was the other way around? If it had been a Conservative LOTO in the same situation? Come now, be honest.
Surely Durham police would allow justice to run is course and Starmer's vow to resign should have no bearing on the outcome. What was more worrying was a whole raft of young Downing Street interns got multiple fines and it transpired that the Met forgot to investigate Johnson when it came to the more egregious breaches.
I think Johnson should have been investigated by Gray, and the Met was a handy smokescreen to delay the damage of that report, and it worked, if it hadn't been for that pesky Pincher. Sunak was "ambushed by a cake", Johnson was not. All a waste of time in my view. Gray should have felled Johnson, and she might have if it hadn't been for the Met. who should have gone nowhere near it (thanks Cressida!).
Currygate was a partisan diversion concocted by Ivo Delingpole, BigG., the Mail, Express and the Sun, all political foes of Starmer. There was never anything to see, and Durham Police made a poor call by succumbing to these politically partisan actors.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
Not the whole story though was it. Starmer very astutely raised the stakes with his 'I'll resign if fined' schtick. So the plod had the choice of no case to asnwer vs bringing down the LOTO over a trivial offence, and blinked.
I'm no fan of this iteration of the Conservative Party, nor of Boris Johnson - who I was criticising whilst many on here were still proclaiming him as the next Jesus. I have zero view on Lee Anderson, as I've not been following it. I've also repeatedly said we need a GE soon.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
You are weirdly obsessed with currygate.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
I love the way brainless Labourites respond to the first mention of something by someone with accusations of obsession. I've answered that below, but I might suggest you up your game a little.
let me ask a little question; a useful one in many circumstances. How would you have responded if it was the other way around? If it had been a Conservative LOTO in the same situation? Come now, be honest.
Surely Durham police would allow justice to run is course and Starmer's vow to resign should have no bearing on the outcome. What was more worrying was a whole raft of young Downing Street interns got multiple fines and it transpired that the Met forgot to investigate Johnson when it came to the more egregious breaches.
I think Johnson should have been investigated by Gray, and the Met was a handy smokescreen to delay the damage of that report, and it worked, if it hadn't been for that pesky Pincher. Sunak was "ambushed by a cake", Johnson was not. All a waste of time in my view. Gray should have felled Johnson, and she might have if it hadn't been for the Met. who should have gone nowhere near it (thanks Cressida!).
Currygate was a partisan diversion concocted by Ivo Delingpole, BigG., the Mail, Express and the Sun, all political foes of Starmer. There was never anything to see, and Durham Police made a poor call by succumbing to these politically partisan actors.
"Surely Durham police would allow justice to run is course and Starmer's vow to resign should have no bearing on the outcome."
If you believe that then I have a bridge... (etc etc)
Comments
You also rather give the game away when you substitute 'drinking a can of beer' for 'getting pissed', I think. No evidence for the latter.
Not consistent with my anecdotal evidence here - but then again I'm in the Midlands and we seem out of kilter with the rest of the country.
https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1624010050401452034
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,isla-bryson-urgent-case-review-recommends-new-process-for-transgender-prisoners
I'm pretty certain I've not mentioned it since the case was closed, so you've got a slightly odd definition of 'obsessed'. In which case, it's a rather telling choice of work for you to use.
I do believe at least one person got pissed at the party, or so it was reported?
From memory, Starmer wanted stronger restrictions at virtually every stage of Covid, and regularly criticised the government for not having stronger / earlier restrictions.
He travelled up north to campaign (this was fine IMV)
He then got together with people from all over the country, in a crowded room, had food and drinks. It was not necessary, and could have been avoided. He knew the restrictions; he was even unsure whether he had broken them. The virus did not care whether the law was broken or not.
IMV what Starmer did was worse than what happened at No. 10, particularly in terms of spreading the virus. And that's what mattered.
We had 0.2% contraction July-Sep and 0.0% Oct-Dec. But September was depressed by the Queen dying and Oct was boosted by a lack of royal deaths.
The formal definition of recession doesn't really matter, but has anyone done a "what if the Queen hadn't died" scenario guesstimate?
In the case above - oil that makes your country rich, but doesn’t emit CO2. Somehow.
I’ve had people claiming that all we need to do, to solve housing is to
- Seize empty flats owned by Citizens of Nowhere
Or
- Seize second homes
etc
Pointing out that the problem is orders of magnitude bigger than that gets them angry. Since that implies building more homes. And development is BAD.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-green-msp-suggests-8-year-olds-could-legally-change-sex/
What's in the 2019 manifesto:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50524262
What's still on the agenda, that isn't moot or not-really-a-matter-for-a-legislative-programme?
While this is generally net bad news for the Tories on a "tactical voting" basis, it will inevitably unwind a couple of expected Labour victories because local Red/Yellow enmity will split the vote, as is (depressingly) familiar.
https://twitter.com/KieranCHodgson/status/1623589398422904832
Quite a few Corbynites are still aggressively certain that Corbyn is (and always was) a hard core, full bore Remainer.
The Lib Dems are not really an ideological vote (not since Brexit second referendum lost salience). So spontaneous naming of them in a poll is unlikely for otherwise Labour or green inclined voters who will go tactically LD in an election.
They are routinely outperforming polling in local by-elections so I think they’ll do ok in May, though it’s a shame the comparator will be a very strong showing in 2019.
What the party really needs is a by-election in a blue wall Tory seat.
1) when environmental issues are in the news, debated by the other parties, they get name checked, in effect. Bit like the Tesla effect - when an auto company runs an EV ad, a bump in sales of Teslas follows.
2) they are Spare Labour for the Starmer Is A Tory types.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/feb/09/take-astrazenecas-warning-seriously-the-uk-is-missing-out-in-life-sciences
There aren't any simple answers to this, particularly given Ireland's tax haven for multinationals tendency, but it's a further step in the erosion of our manufacturing base.
And only idiots like Minford believe we can exist solely on services.
The AFU shot down 61 of 71 cruise missiles of various types (Kh-101, Kh-555, Kalibr) used by the enemy during the attack today. Also 5 Shahed drones were destroyed.
The interception rate on the cruise missiles is almost 86% which is higher than usual (80%) during recent attacks.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1624017778419146753
Currygate (yet again)
The desperation is palpable.
Unlike manned aircraft, the tactics for missiles are limited.
I have Been predicting at the next GE the Tories will run on closed borders and a referendum on the death penalty
For the WWC who loved Brexit that may be a persuasive stance
I am against both BTW but gives Tories their best chances of hanging in there (see what i did)
When is a woman not a woman?
It appears they’re not when charged with child abduction, but are when charged with assault:
A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “A 35-year-old woman has been charged in connection with an alleged assault which occurred at a demonstration in George Square, Edinburgh on Wednesday, December 14, 2022.
“A report will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10196892/uni-trans-activist-charged-alleged-assault-at-protest/
His leadership doesn't stop the LDs performing exceptionally well in by-elections, but is a barrier to their progress in national polling and, by extension, general elections.
Trying to insinuate that my position on Starmer's stupidity over the curry event is some sort of party-political hit job is way off base. Starmer was wrong to do it, and it's interesting for a reason: it has implications for the sort of PM he'll be.
Their political antennae, nationally, are misfunctioning wildly and the buck has to stop with Ed Davey. In local government, and in the heat of a by-election campaign, they can still pull off victories. But as a national party standing for Westminster seats, there's nothing going on.
I'm sure there's some logic there.
The cops investigated. No case to answer. Not guilty. Move on.
LOL
NEW THREAD
Also, the fact that Johnson had a personal mandate that Sunak lacks doesn't outweigh the reality that Johnson had lied several times too often to stay in the role.
Johnson on the other hand attended the parties.
let me ask a little question; a useful one in many circumstances. How would you have responded if it was the other way around? If it had been a Conservative LOTO in the same situation? Come now, be honest.
Simples.
I think Johnson should have been investigated by Gray, and the Met was a handy smokescreen to delay the damage of that report, and it worked, if it hadn't been for that pesky Pincher. Sunak was "ambushed by a cake", Johnson was not. All a waste of time in my view. Gray should have felled Johnson, and she might have if it hadn't been for the Met. who should have gone nowhere near it (thanks Cressida!).
Currygate was a partisan diversion concocted by Ivo Delingpole, BigG., the Mail, Express and the Sun, all political foes of Starmer. There was never anything to see, and Durham Police made a poor call by succumbing to these politically partisan actors.
If you believe that then I have a bridge... (etc etc)