Had my policy chat at the pub with LD PPC this evening. I think I made some useful headway on tax. But in any case he’s a shoo-in for MP at the next election so it will be interesting to follow his career.
Interesting to chat to someone on the left of the party. On economics significantly to the left of many in Labour. And highly driven and ambitious.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Mariopol withstood for a couple of months. The Siege of Leningrad lasted well over 800 days. A temporary pause does not mean one side or the other will lose. The Ukraine war is its own battle, and in 50 years time, people will be talking about - 'this is Ukraine mk II')
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
One of my happiest memories is sitting on a rocking chair, feeding my son from a bottle as he was cradled in my arm. In many ways I couldn't wait for the lack of sleep, changing nappies and all that stuff to end. But now it has ended, I miss it.
I daresay someone'd say that makes me a Zulu-Zula man compared to their 'Alpha' view of themselves...
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Is it not a bit odd though that you think the standard examples as per the cards (gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer) are so outdated but that the rock festivals and Playstations are examples of refusing to grow up? Is there some sweet spot between the two?
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
On the subject of Sturgeon going, I am not too surprised. After 8-10 years at the top most leaders run out of steam and ideas and the party needs a refresh. To debate direction and policy is an uncertain gamble, and can produce a Trussterfuck, but can also give fresh impetus as indeed Sturgeon taking over from Salmond did in the aftermath of the Sindyref.
Time will tell which way it goes, but I suspect that the most likely beneficiary is SLAB. It is hard to see the SCON getting a positive swing, but if the SNP choose poorly then SLAB are waiting in the wings to regain the Scottish anti Tory vote.
Slab got into bed with the Tories long ago - they are now a right wing British nationalist and Brexiter party.
I think the Scottish Greens will take up much of the left wing vote that once went to Slab and then shifted to the Scottish Socialists.
On the subject of Sturgeon going, I am not too surprised. After 8-10 years at the top most leaders run out of steam and ideas and the party needs a refresh. To debate direction and policy is an uncertain gamble, and can produce a Trussterfuck, but can also give fresh impetus as indeed Sturgeon taking over from Salmond did in the aftermath of the Sindyref.
Time will tell which way it goes, but I suspect that the most likely beneficiary is SLAB. It is hard to see the SCON getting a positive swing, but if the SNP choose poorly then SLAB are waiting in the wings to regain the Scottish anti Tory vote.
Sarwar and Starmer are well known quantities in the dowsing heather fires stakes so SLab need to start improving their ratings in other areas. I mean really improve.
Certainly many SNP voters won't move across to SLAB, but some will. I am sure those figures are favourable compared with SCON, and someone has to win.
If I were running SLAB I would run the GE 2024 campaign along the lines of "Vote Scottish Labour to have a strong Scottish voice at Westminster"
But Mr Starmer has been very careful precisely to try and exclude that voice just because Scottish. We're remainers, remember.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
And just because inflation is less doesn't mean prices go down - something our Tories sometimes seem to believe.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Is it not a bit odd though that you think the standard examples as per the cards (gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer) are so outdated but that the rock festivals and Playstations are examples of refusing to grow up? Is there some sweet spot between the two?
Though apart from golf and PlayStation, I do like all these things.
When Fox Jr was very young, Mrs Foxy worked nights and/or weekends for childcare reasons, so several days a week I was left literally holding the baby. Learning how to keep the little fellow interested and happy while running errands was a big part of my life back then, and not one that I would swap, much like JJ.
One thing that is important in being a Dad is to do lots of boring things together. Any fool can entertain a child on a day out at Disneyland, or even the Whacky Warehouse, but keeping them interested while shopping in the supermarket requires more engagement. It is in those moments that you build strong relationships. It is also important to model that being a man involves dull stuff, not just play
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
It's an average for the economy as a whole. It will be higher for some - and lower for others.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
And just because inflation is less doesn't mean prices go down - something our Tories sometimes seem to believe.
On the contrary, they are still rising at 10% a year on average. That’s still a lot. My guess is that we will be disappointed at the rate inflation falls.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
On the subject of Sturgeon going, I am not too surprised. After 8-10 years at the top most leaders run out of steam and ideas and the party needs a refresh. To debate direction and policy is an uncertain gamble, and can produce a Trussterfuck, but can also give fresh impetus as indeed Sturgeon taking over from Salmond did in the aftermath of the Sindyref.
Time will tell which way it goes, but I suspect that the most likely beneficiary is SLAB. It is hard to see the SCON getting a positive swing, but if the SNP choose poorly then SLAB are waiting in the wings to regain the Scottish anti Tory vote.
Slab got into bed with the Tories long ago - they are now a right wing British nationalist and Brexiter party.
I think the Scottish Greens will take up much of the left wing vote that once went to Slab and then shifted to the Scottish Socialists.
And the SNP may be about to be led by an anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage leader who would not look completely out of place in the US Republican Party!
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
And just because inflation is less doesn't mean prices go down - something our Tories sometimes seem to believe.
Prices went down by 0.6% in January compared to December.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Yes, it does look as if the Russian naval brigade from the Far East Fleet got badly mauled and it is back to the human wave and artillery pounding of the meat grinder.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
I yesterday received a valentine's card thanking me for always gettung thinhs down from high shelves, taking the bins out, and dealing with the cat poo. I know what I bring to this relationship.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
And just because inflation is less doesn't mean prices go down - something our Tories sometimes seem to believe.
On the contrary, they are still rising at 10% a year on average. That’s still a lot. My guess is that we will be disappointed at the rate inflation falls.
I am reasonably confident that it will fall to around 4 or 5% by end 2023. However any further falls will be hard work and the Bank may need to keep interest rates relatively 'high' (not historically high) if it wants to meet the 2% target.
And of course as others have said the price rises that have already taken place won't, broadly speaking, be reversed.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
I thought the SNP voters fairly evenly split over the GR bill, so it might not be decisive.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
It's an average for the economy as a whole. It will be higher for some - and lower for others.
How else do you expect to calculate it?
It's not a question of how it is calculated - it might be a question of general ignorance about what is included and what isn't. The difference between CPI and RPI numbers currently could be better explained to the public but that isn't really the point either.
How people perceive inflation is dictated solely by their economic priorities in terms of expenditure because the inflation is different in different sectors. We all eat so talking about food inflation makes sense - we don't all have jobs, we don't all have mortgages so what's happening in those areas may not impact everyone.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
The positive thing about Forbes is that she is almost the only cabinet member who actually has an interest in the Scottish economy. In the long run that is the only road to viable independence. She would certainly dump the Greens but for me that is another positive. I don’t know what Sturgeon was thinking bringing those morons into government ( and I apologise to any morons offended by the comparison).
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Yes, it does look as if the Russian naval brigade from the Far East Fleet got badly mauled and it is back to the human wave and artillery pounding of the meat grinder.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
Which implies that the "offensive" has already failed. They will need a lot of fortifications if a few brigades of the most modern NATO tanks turns up. Maginot Line, anyone?
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
I thought Russia still hadn't deployed ~200k of those mobilised last autumn, and that they were being trained?
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
And just because inflation is less doesn't mean prices go down - something our Tories sometimes seem to believe.
Prices went down by 0.6% in January compared to December.
Though even that's got a wide spread.
Clothes down a lot (January sales?) and transport down a lot (the petrol reductions noted earlier and the £2 bus fare thing?), but those reductions will have passed quite a lot of people by.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
And just because inflation is less doesn't mean prices go down - something our Tories sometimes seem to believe.
On the contrary, they are still rising at 10% a year on average. That’s still a lot. My guess is that we will be disappointed at the rate inflation falls.
I am reasonably confident that it will fall to around 4 or 5% by end 2023. However any further falls will be hard work and the Bank may need to keep interest rates relatively 'high' (not historically high) if it wants to meet the 2% target.
And of course as others have said the price rises that have already taken place won't, broadly speaking, be reversed.
Yep we are on the same page. We will get sharp falls as the rapid energy increases of early last year fall out of the reckoning but after that it’s going to get sticky. Base rates still got another couple of quarters to go I think.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Yes, it does look as if the Russian naval brigade from the Far East Fleet got badly mauled and it is back to the human wave and artillery pounding of the meat grinder.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
One of the weird things about this war is that the Russians have been prepared to endure heavy casualties on incremental advances - Izyum, Severodonetsk, Bakhmut - but they've never really done the same on the defensive. Either they've crumbled, or they've withdrawn.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
It's an average for the economy as a whole. It will be higher for some - and lower for others.
How else do you expect to calculate it?
It's not a question of how it is calculated - it might be a question of general ignorance about what is included and what isn't. The difference between CPI and RPI numbers currently could be better explained to the public but that isn't really the point either.
How people perceive inflation is dictated solely by their economic priorities in terms of expenditure because the inflation is different in different sectors. We all eat so talking about food inflation makes sense - we don't all have jobs, we don't all have mortgages so what's happening in those areas may not impact everyone.
The key question is what it's always been. How much money is left at the end of the month, or (more commonly right now) how much month is left at the end of the money? Everything else is newswaffle.
If the government can fix that, they still have a glimmer of a chance
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Yes, it does look as if the Russian naval brigade from the Far East Fleet got badly mauled and it is back to the human wave and artillery pounding of the meat grinder.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
Which implies that the "offensive" has already failed. They will need a lot of fortifications if a few brigades of the most modern NATO tanks turns up. Maginot Line, anyone?
An offensive war is expensive, especially without adequate air cover. I'd love to think the Ukrainians could overcome Russian defences as easily as the Germans did the Maginot Line, but I have doubts. I hope my doubts prove fruitless.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
But there was no need to formalise the informal relationship that already existed. The Greens were already basically providing SNP support without the ministerial jobs.
Sturgeon brought them into government for no real benefit.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
The positive thing about Forbes is that she is almost the only cabinet member who actually has an interest in the Scottish economy. In the long run that is the only road to viable independence. She would certainly dump the Greens but for me that is another positive. I don’t know what Sturgeon was thinking bringing those morons into government ( and I apologise to any morons offended by the comparison).
You may be right and she is, by all accounts, quite likeable to boot which would be a refreshing change from Nippy, but the Scottish political establishment is besotted with wokeness and has zero interest in boring intractable stuff like the economy. So she would be a poor fit. We shall see soon enough. My guess is she won't go for it - besides, she is just 32 with a new baby.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
The positive thing about Forbes is that she is almost the only cabinet member who actually has an interest in the Scottish economy. In the long run that is the only road to viable independence. She would certainly dump the Greens but for me that is another positive. I don’t know what Sturgeon was thinking bringing those morons into government ( and I apologise to any morons offended by the comparison).
You may be right and she is, by all accounts, quite likeable to boot which would be a refreshing change from Nippy, but the Scottish political establishment is besotted with wokeness and has zero interest in boring intractable stuff like the economy. So she would be a poor fit. We shall see soon enough. My guess is she won't go for it - besides, she is just 32 with a new baby.
Er, I see you still haven't learnt that Nippy is a highly misogynist term in Scots. Never mind, you won't be needing it much longer.
Foxy - From what I have seen, little girls are interested in shopping for groceries, starting as early as 18 months old. And very few little boys ever are.
(And, typically, little girls start thinking they should care for even littler children beginning between 2 and 3. Little boys start thinking they should protect their siblings and pets beginning between 3 and 4. I'll repeat, that's from what I have seen.)
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
It's an average for the economy as a whole. It will be higher for some - and lower for others.
How else do you expect to calculate it?
It's not a question of how it is calculated - it might be a question of general ignorance about what is included and what isn't. The difference between CPI and RPI numbers currently could be better explained to the public but that isn't really the point either.
How people perceive inflation is dictated solely by their economic priorities in terms of expenditure because the inflation is different in different sectors. We all eat so talking about food inflation makes sense - we don't all have jobs, we don't all have mortgages so what's happening in those areas may not impact everyone.
Inflation in food and non-alcoholic beverages between January and December was 0.0% - not falling, but not, "still rising, just more slowly," as many people have said today without looking at the actual numbers.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Yes, it does look as if the Russian naval brigade from the Far East Fleet got badly mauled and it is back to the human wave and artillery pounding of the meat grinder.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
Which implies that the "offensive" has already failed. They will need a lot of fortifications if a few brigades of the most modern NATO tanks turns up. Maginot Line, anyone?
Though without air cover as part of an integrated mixed force those tanks could be scrap very quickly.
This thread shows quite a lot of Russian defensive fortifications being constructed.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
They need the Greens to deliver pro-Indy list MSPs to top up the numbers and deliver a majority. Also, I think Sturgeon genuinely holds similar views to the Greens, and was therefore more than happy to co-opt them.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Bet on the team which has lost the least by mid Feb. Which is, er [checks] Newcastle. At (gosh) 200-1. That seems astonishingly generous. I shall have a small nibble on that.
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Yes, and I am quite looking forward to ManU away on Sunday, and Arsenal at home the week after. With our change in form it is going to be much tougher than either team expected a few weeks ago.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
And just because inflation is less doesn't mean prices go down - something our Tories sometimes seem to believe.
Prices went down by 0.6% in January compared to December.
Though even that's got a wide spread.
Clothes down a lot (January sales?) and transport down a lot (the petrol reductions noted earlier and the £2 bus fare thing?), but those reductions will have passed quite a lot of people by.
An average will always hide a lot of variation. One of the largest contributions to the fall in transport prices was from air travel, so not exactly of much benefit to the poorest in society, but reflective of the fact that air fuel is untaxed and so prices will respond more to changes in fuel costs.
But discussion of that detail is a world away from claiming that prices are still rising. Maybe they will in February.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Yes, it does look as if the Russian naval brigade from the Far East Fleet got badly mauled and it is back to the human wave and artillery pounding of the meat grinder.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
Which implies that the "offensive" has already failed. They will need a lot of fortifications if a few brigades of the most modern NATO tanks turns up. Maginot Line, anyone?
Siegfried line. It's where you hang your washing out.
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Bet on the team which has lost the least by mid Feb. Which is, er [checks] Newcastle. At (gosh) 200-1. That seems astonishingly generous. I shall have a small nibble on that.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
It's an average for the economy as a whole. It will be higher for some - and lower for others.
How else do you expect to calculate it?
It's not a question of how it is calculated - it might be a question of general ignorance about what is included and what isn't. The difference between CPI and RPI numbers currently could be better explained to the public but that isn't really the point either.
How people perceive inflation is dictated solely by their economic priorities in terms of expenditure because the inflation is different in different sectors. We all eat so talking about food inflation makes sense - we don't all have jobs, we don't all have mortgages so what's happening in those areas may not impact everyone.
The key question is what it's always been. How much money is left at the end of the month, or (more commonly right now) how much month is left at the end of the money? Everything else is newswaffle.
If the government can fix that, they still have a glimmer of a chance
If the rebellious Tories can drag the dismal decline manager and the assistant dismal decline manager to remove VAT from domestic fuel, they will be getting somewhere.
There is absolutely zero point in making something less affordable by taxing it so that you then have to subsidise it. It's also a Brexit benefit. It would be a suicidal move not to do it - of course Sunak and Hunt are more than happy to doom the Tory party, but hopefully it will be made clear to them that they won't get the budget through otherwise.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Yes, it does look as if the Russian naval brigade from the Far East Fleet got badly mauled and it is back to the human wave and artillery pounding of the meat grinder.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
Which implies that the "offensive" has already failed. They will need a lot of fortifications if a few brigades of the most modern NATO tanks turns up. Maginot Line, anyone?
Siegfried line. It's where you hang your washing out.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
The positive thing about Forbes is that she is almost the only cabinet member who actually has an interest in the Scottish economy. In the long run that is the only road to viable independence. She would certainly dump the Greens but for me that is another positive. I don’t know what Sturgeon was thinking bringing those morons into government ( and I apologise to any morons offended by the comparison).
You may be right and she is, by all accounts, quite likeable to boot which would be a refreshing change from Nippy, but the Scottish political establishment is besotted with wokeness and has zero interest in boring intractable stuff like the economy. So she would be a poor fit. We shall see soon enough. My guess is she won't go for it - besides, she is just 32 with a new baby.
Er, I see you still haven't learnt that Nippy is a highly misogynist term in Scots. Never mind, you won't be needing it much longer.
Hmm. I thought "Nippy Sweetie" was the preferred familiar term for NS among her more avid followers.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
They need the Greens to deliver pro-Indy list MSPs to top up the numbers and deliver a majority. Also, I think Sturgeon genuinely holds similar views to the Greens, and was therefore more than happy to co-opt them.
But they were doing that anyway because the Greens are pro-indy, or at least they say they are. There was no need to bring them into the government to achieve that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the electoral maths of the 2021 parliament aren't that different to the 2016 parliament and the SNP didn't have a formal relationship with the Greens in that parliament.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
But there was no need to formalise the informal relationship that already existed. The Greens were already basically providing SNP support without the ministerial jobs.
Sturgeon brought them into government for no real benefit.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Bet on the team which has lost the least by mid Feb. Which is, er [checks] Newcastle. At (gosh) 200-1. That seems astonishingly generous. I shall have a small nibble on that.
They've drawn more than they've won though.
Yes, I grant you that. But 200-1 for a team who doesn't lose, ten points behind in mid Feb. Strikes me as good value.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
You have missed someone who has thrown her hat in - in the reports earlier - quit a front bench job over gender reforms?
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
The positive thing about Forbes is that she is almost the only cabinet member who actually has an interest in the Scottish economy. In the long run that is the only road to viable independence. She would certainly dump the Greens but for me that is another positive. I don’t know what Sturgeon was thinking bringing those morons into government ( and I apologise to any morons offended by the comparison).
You may be right and she is, by all accounts, quite likeable to boot which would be a refreshing change from Nippy, but the Scottish political establishment is besotted with wokeness and has zero interest in boring intractable stuff like the economy. So she would be a poor fit. We shall see soon enough. My guess is she won't go for it - besides, she is just 32 with a new baby.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
The positive thing about Forbes is that she is almost the only cabinet member who actually has an interest in the Scottish economy. In the long run that is the only road to viable independence. She would certainly dump the Greens but for me that is another positive. I don’t know what Sturgeon was thinking bringing those morons into government ( and I apologise to any morons offended by the comparison).
You may be right and she is, by all accounts, quite likeable to boot which would be a refreshing change from Nippy, but the Scottish political establishment is besotted with wokeness and has zero interest in boring intractable stuff like the economy. So she would be a poor fit. We shall see soon enough. My guess is she won't go for it - besides, she is just 32 with a new baby.
Yes I doubt that she will be a candidate. But I’d like her to be.
Foxy - From what I have seen, little girls are interested in shopping for groceries, starting as early as 18 months old. And very few little boys ever are.
(And, typically, little girls start thinking they should care for even littler children beginning between 2 and 3. Little boys start thinking they should protect their siblings and pets beginning between 3 and 4. I'll repeat, that's from what I have seen.)
Fox Jr was always quite happy to go shopping. The trick was to turn it into a game of find and seek.
Politico.com - The DNC Thought It Killed the Iowa Caucus. It's Not Dead Yet. Iowa Democrats are preparing to fight for their caucus — and their relevance as rural voters.
WATERLOO, Iowa – On the day the Democratic National Committee voted to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, a former congressman named Dave Nagle thumbed through a Rolodex full of faded contact cards at his desk on the seventh floor of an old department store building here.
Frost clung to the windows. Nagle knew what was coming. In Philadelphia, where the DNC met, everyone was writing Iowa’s obituary. And when the vote went as expected, his wife, Debi, who was following the proceedings on Twitter from the next room over, came to the door.
Nagle sighed.
“So,” he said, looking up from his desk. “It’s a war.”
For half a century, Iowa had gone first in the presidential nominating process, a fluke of the calendar that revolutionized the modern White House campaign. It was in Iowa that Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer and former governor of Georgia, catapulted himself to the presidency in 1976, demonstrating that even a relative nobody could make a name for himself here. The result was a quadrennial spectacle in which presidential candidates crammed into every corn- and soybean-sprouting inch of this small, rural state, transforming Iowa into the presidential campaign’s biggest stage.
But Democrats nationally had for years been tiring of Iowa, which had fallen out of step with the party’s diversifying base. Demographically, Iowa was too white; politically, it was becoming too red. President Joe Biden wanted to drop Iowa and put South Carolina first in the nominating process, and the outcome seemed inevitable.
Unlike in New Hampshire – whose early primary also was being pushed back, and where Democrats were protesting loudly — Iowa never looked like it had much of a leg to stand on. Democrats here had been embarrassed by a botched caucus in 2020, in which the flubbing of the presidential preference count was so severe that the Associated Press could not even declare a winner. They had few allies in Washington, and even fewer after the midterm elections, in which Democrats were swept out of all but one statewide executive office, auditor. Biden, if he runs for re-election as expected, is not likely even to compete here.
“It’s a wasteland,” one Democratic strategist told me. Iowa, he said, is one not-unlikely step from “becoming Idaho.”
Even in Iowa’s home-state media, it seemed as if the battle was over. . . .
But between the lines in all of that coverage, there was a sign that Iowa might not take the loss of its early caucuses lying down. . . .
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Bet on the team which has lost the least by mid Feb. Which is, er [checks] Newcastle. At (gosh) 200-1. That seems astonishingly generous. I shall have a small nibble on that.
Something of a renaissance in north east football at the moment. Sunderland going well and a cracking result for Boro tonight.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
But there was no need to formalise the informal relationship that already existed. The Greens were already basically providing SNP support without the ministerial jobs.
Sturgeon brought them into government for no real benefit.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
That's about the only explanation that makes sense to me, but mainly because I think most of Sturgeon's actions over the past 6 or so years point to someone expecting the Tories/HMG to play fair and (for whatever reason) failing to react to the reality that they weren't.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
The SNP leadership are very close to the Greens. The wider membership, not so much.
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Yes I wish it were not so but I agree. And it might well become a one horse race soon enough.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
You have missed someone who has thrown her hat in - in the reports earlier - quit a front bench job over gender reforms?
Thanks. I forgot Ash Regan. I suspect her votes will be interchangeable with those of Kate Forbes.
Just glancing at the new Voxmeter poll in Denmark.
All three parties in the coalition Government have lost ground since the election. Combined, they polled just over 50% in November and are now at 40.5%.
The "winners" are those on either flank who stayed out of the Government - on the Left, the Socialist People's Party is now second with 14.9% (from 8.3% at the election) while on the Right, the Liberal Alliance are up to 10.8% from 7.9%.
The split is currently 30% on the centre-Right and Right, 40% supporting the centrist Government and 30% on the centre left and Left.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
Most seats in Holyrood from parties with indy in the manifesto. What else is a mandate if not that?
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Yes I wish it were not so but I agree. And it might well become a one horse race soon enough.
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Yes I wish it were not so but I agree. And it might well become a one horse race soon enough.
Yes. All over for Arsenal now. You don't become champions by losing at home to your closest challengers.
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Bet on the team which has lost the least by mid Feb. Which is, er [checks] Newcastle. At (gosh) 200-1. That seems astonishingly generous. I shall have a small nibble on that.
They've drawn more than they've won though.
Yes, I grant you that. But 200-1 for a team who doesn't lose, ten points behind in mid Feb. Strikes me as good value.
Maximum points 89. With 16 consecutive wins... I doubt that will be enough. Let alone them doing it. 200-1 seems about right. Don't score enough. Besides. Fourth and a possible League Cup would be plenty.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
Was Jimmy Carter a peanut farmer? Well, sort of. He did raise peanuts. But the bulk of the famliy income came from a warehouse his family owned. I should add, for those not famliar with the relationships between full time farmers and warehouse owners, that the interests of the two are not identical.
He also claimed at the time to have been a "physicist". I'm not sure how many real physicists would agree.
(I happened to see him give his standard talk, making those two claims, and then promising never to lie to us. It was an interesting experience, to say the least.)
For the record: It is common to give Carter low marks for his presidency, and high marks for his post-presidency; I give him mixed marks for both.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
The SNP leadership are very close to the Greens. The wider membership, not so much.
Yes I think that’s right. Shades of Cameron and Osborne having much more in common with the Orange bookers around Clegg than they did with most of their own party.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
Are the 20 branches the same as constituency? If so, Westminster or Holyrood?
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Yes I wish it were not so but I agree. And it might well become a one horse race soon enough.
Yes. All over for Arsenal now. You don't become champions by losing at home to your closest challengers.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Yes I think that’s a mandate. Even if not legally, then under natural law.
A brave UK leader might agree to a referendum early in the next parliament in the hope the answer is again no and Indy is put to bed, but after the Brexit referendum I think the chances of that are slim. Nobody wants to take the risk.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Morally perhaps but constitutionally no.
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
Are the 20 branches the same as constituency? If so, Westminster or Holyrood?
Was Jimmy Carter a peanut farmer? Well, sort of. He did raise peanuts. But the bulk of the famliy income came from a warehouse his family owned. I should add, for those not famliar with the relationships between full time farmers and warehouse owners, that the interests of the two are not identical.
He also claimed at the time to have been a "physicist". I'm not sure how many real physicists would agree.
(I happened to see him give his standard talk, making those two claims, and then promising never to lie to us. It was an interesting experience, to say the least.)
For the record: It is common to give Carter low marks for his presidency, and high marks for his post-presidency; I give him mixed marks for both.
Someone who had been a nuke submariner under Rickover would sure need to know a lot of physics and engineering.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
Was Jimmy Carter a peanut farmer? Well, sort of. He did raise peanuts. But the bulk of the famliy income came from a warehouse his family owned. I should add, for those not famliar with the relationships between full time farmers and warehouse owners, that the interests of the two are not identical.
He also claimed at the time to have been a "physicist". I'm not sure how many real physicists would agree.
(I happened to see him give his standard talk, making those two claims, and then promising never to lie to us. It was an interesting experience, to say the least.)
For the record: It is common to give Carter low marks for his presidency, and high marks for his post-presidency; I give him mixed marks for both.
Isn't it possible to have been both farmer and physicist? His 7 years of service in the USN submarines was in a fairly technical role, before he inherited the peanut farm and related businesses.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
‘Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.’
? How is that a precedent when the Scottish Parliament didn’t exist?
Comments
Interesting to chat to someone on the left of the party. On economics significantly to the left of many in Labour. And highly driven and ambitious.
I daresay someone'd say that makes me a Zulu-Zula man compared to their 'Alpha' view of themselves...
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
I think the Scottish Greens will take up much of the left wing vote that once went to Slab and then shifted to the Scottish Socialists.
This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives.
Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
When Fox Jr was very young, Mrs Foxy worked nights and/or weekends for childcare reasons, so several days a week I was left literally holding the baby. Learning how to keep the little fellow interested and happy while running errands was a big part of my life back then, and not one that I would swap, much like JJ.
One thing that is important in being a Dad is to do lots of boring things together. Any fool can entertain a child on a day out at Disneyland, or even the Whacky Warehouse, but keeping them interested while shopping in the supermarket requires more engagement. It is in those moments that you build strong relationships. It is also important to model that being a man involves dull stuff, not just play
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
How else do you expect to calculate it?
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
And of course as others have said the price rises that have already taken place won't, broadly speaking, be reversed.
How people perceive inflation is dictated solely by their economic priorities in terms of expenditure because the inflation is different in different sectors. We all eat so talking about food inflation makes sense - we don't all have jobs, we don't all have mortgages so what's happening in those areas may not impact everyone.
She would certainly dump the Greens but for me that is another positive. I don’t know what Sturgeon was thinking bringing those morons into government ( and I apologise to any morons offended by the comparison).
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Clothes down a lot (January sales?) and transport down a lot (the petrol reductions noted earlier and the £2 bus fare thing?), but those reductions will have passed quite a lot of people by.
If the government can fix that, they still have a glimmer of a chance
Sturgeon brought them into government for no real benefit.
Er, I see you still haven't learnt that Nippy is a highly misogynist term in Scots. Never mind, you won't be needing it much longer.
(And, typically, little girls start thinking they should care for even littler children beginning between 2 and 3. Little boys start thinking they should protect their siblings and pets beginning between 3 and 4. I'll repeat, that's from what I have seen.)
It's a two-horse race imo.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/thousands-scots-clap-nicola-sturgeon-22328047
Say what you like about Boris Johnson, but he didn't go that far.
Perhaps there should be a slow handclap soon for "good riddance and can't she GTFO now and hand over to a caretaker?"
This thread shows quite a lot of Russian defensive fortifications being constructed.
https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1625593870322110467?t=N1PyitNn4v8cTtHb6Wf2Sg&s=19
Building trenches around the Berdyansk airfield on the Azov coast is not an offensive move.
https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1619791364715159553?t=4Ka89a3IWFMevu2x-F0LyA&s=19
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal.
The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists.
SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates:
John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time.
Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth.
Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote.
Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully.
Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be:
Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing.
Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS.
Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
That seems astonishingly generous. I shall have a small nibble on that.
But discussion of that detail is a world away from claiming that prices are still rising. Maybe they will in February.
There is absolutely zero point in making something less affordable by taxing it so that you then have to subsidise it. It's also a Brexit benefit. It would be a suicidal move not to do it - of course Sunak and Hunt are more than happy to doom the Tory party, but hopefully it will be made clear to them that they won't get the budget through otherwise.
No?
I shortened it for obvious reasons.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the electoral maths of the 2021 parliament aren't that different to the 2016 parliament and the SNP didn't have a formal relationship with the Greens in that parliament.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Politico.com - The DNC Thought It Killed the Iowa Caucus. It's Not Dead Yet.
Iowa Democrats are preparing to fight for their caucus — and their relevance as rural voters.
WATERLOO, Iowa – On the day the Democratic National Committee voted to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, a former congressman named Dave Nagle thumbed through a Rolodex full of faded contact cards at his desk on the seventh floor of an old department store building here.
Frost clung to the windows. Nagle knew what was coming. In Philadelphia, where the DNC met, everyone was writing Iowa’s obituary. And when the vote went as expected, his wife, Debi, who was following the proceedings on Twitter from the next room over, came to the door.
Nagle sighed.
“So,” he said, looking up from his desk. “It’s a war.”
For half a century, Iowa had gone first in the presidential nominating process, a fluke of the calendar that revolutionized the modern White House campaign. It was in Iowa that Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer and former governor of Georgia, catapulted himself to the presidency in 1976, demonstrating that even a relative nobody could make a name for himself here. The result was a quadrennial spectacle in which presidential candidates crammed into every corn- and soybean-sprouting inch of this small, rural state, transforming Iowa into the presidential campaign’s biggest stage.
But Democrats nationally had for years been tiring of Iowa, which had fallen out of step with the party’s diversifying base. Demographically, Iowa was too white; politically, it was becoming too red. President Joe Biden wanted to drop Iowa and put South Carolina first in the nominating process, and the outcome seemed inevitable.
Unlike in New Hampshire – whose early primary also was being pushed back, and where Democrats were protesting loudly — Iowa never looked like it had much of a leg to stand on. Democrats here had been embarrassed by a botched caucus in 2020, in which the flubbing of the presidential preference count was so severe that the Associated Press could not even declare a winner. They had few allies in Washington, and even fewer after the midterm elections, in which Democrats were swept out of all but one statewide executive office, auditor. Biden, if he runs for re-election as expected, is not likely even to compete here.
“It’s a wasteland,” one Democratic strategist told me. Iowa, he said, is one not-unlikely step from “becoming Idaho.”
Even in Iowa’s home-state media, it seemed as if the battle was over. . . .
But between the lines in all of that coverage, there was a sign that Iowa might not take the loss of its early caucuses lying down. . . .
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/15/iowa-caucuses-democratic-national-committee-00082177
All three parties in the coalition Government have lost ground since the election. Combined, they polled just over 50% in November and are now at 40.5%.
The "winners" are those on either flank who stayed out of the Government - on the Left, the Socialist People's Party is now second with 14.9% (from 8.3% at the election) while on the Right, the Liberal Alliance are up to 10.8% from 7.9%.
The split is currently 30% on the centre-Right and Right, 40% supporting the centrist Government and 30% on the centre left and Left.
I doubt that will be enough.
Let alone them doing it.
200-1 seems about right. Don't score enough. Besides. Fourth and a possible League Cup would be plenty.
Edit.
Here's some stats on winners' points totals.
https://www.bettingoffers.org.uk/premier-league-winning-points-totals/
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
He also claimed at the time to have been a "physicist". I'm not sure how many real physicists would agree.
(I happened to see him give his standard talk, making those two claims, and then promising never to lie to us. It was an interesting experience, to say the least.)
For the record: It is common to give Carter low marks for his presidency, and high marks for his post-presidency; I give him mixed marks for both.
Will Sturgeon endorse someone or stand neutral?
A brave UK leader might agree to a referendum early in the next parliament in the hope the answer is again no and Indy is put to bed, but after the Brexit referendum I think the chances of that are slim. Nobody wants to take the risk.
Lots of possible supply problems:
Rebuilding U.S. Inventories: Six Critical Systems
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems
Which is largely why they’re not getting the (possibly game changing) ATACAMS.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/13/u-s-wont-send-long-range-missiles-ukraine-00082652
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
https://snpnortheastfife.scot/branches/
?
How is that a precedent when the Scottish Parliament didn’t exist?