Hello from the executive lounge of Hilton Wembley. I am going to have to do some work this year to hit the threshold to keep my Diamond status going. This is stay 5 this year and I need 30. As I get so much value in upgrades with my status I can see myself doing the hotel equivalent of an airlines points run to ensure I keep at this level.
The first episode comes across as a little 'The Sweeney', and as it progresses and we get different points of view of the same events from different parts of 'the criminal justice system' it becomes ever more 'Oh, that is.... badly f**ked up...'. It's quite heartbreaking by the end.
No idea if it's available on streaming platforms etc, but ping me if it's of any interest.
Network released it on DVD a few years back with an extra feature including cast interviews. May be available cheap on EBay.
On inflation, I'm reliably informed that McDonald's just has or is about to cut the price of its meals in the UK. It's the first price cut they've made since 2021 apparently.
A new menu is due next week, so presumably then.
McDonalds have consistently priced themselves down. Their products set the stage though. McD cheeseburger - best basic burger winner, all years; McD Quarter pounder - best gormet burger, some years; McD Big Mac - best fancy burger, pretty much forever.
If I had their product I'd be going up market.
I pity you, for living in a world where McDonalds is the best of all possible burgers.
Only thing on the whole freaking menu that's not total barf-bag filler, are McD french fries.
A good burger is like a bra.
Burgers, like bras, are a third engineering, a third anticipation, and a third big messy mouthfuls.
The first rule of a burger is that it’s a sandwich. You must be able to eat it with your hands.
The 'fancy' burgers that you can barely lift in your hands, never mind take a bite of, are one of the worst 'gastronomy' trends of all time.
There is a quite enjoyable Heston Blumenthal show 'In search of perfection' with one episode focussed on burgers and he goes into the eat-ability of burgers in some depth with some research scientists.
Even with a McD's there is a certain skill of not losing all the lettuce, gherkins and onion out the side of the Big Mac immediately after you pick it up, and in making sure all the different layers of bun/burger/cheese don't all slide away from each other in opposite directions.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
I agree, Cyclefree. I don’t think a policy of sorting out a failing police force is going to be successfully portrayed as ‘weak on crime’.
I’m not sure even the reliable Tory pensioner vote would be fooled by that crap any more.
Suella talks a very good job. It is very interesting that she has fallen four square behind Rowley to condemn Casey's language. The condemnation has dismissed a central plank of Casey's report. The Met owe Suella.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Starmer will still probably win, but a couple of observations:
(1) Starmer only really got clear & consistent leads off the back of Johnson's scandals and incompetence in 2021 and the fall out thereafter - turboboosted by Truss. He didn't do much to deserve it (other than demonstrate Labour was No Longer Corbyn and a safe repository for votes again) and was a decidedly uninspired leader before that. Indeed, he was severely criticised on here for it throughout 2020 and early 2021. (2) He gives every impression of executing a step-by-step electoral playback written out for him by someone else. Yes, he has the competence to recognise good advice, and to follow it, but it's not exactly sincere. People suspect that the real Starmer and what he's play acting are two very different things. And I think they're right.
Starmer is and remains what he has always been: a tedious tactical triangulator.
It's perfectly possible in my eyes for Sunak to undermine that. It's really only the toxified Conservative brand underpinning (1) now - a big underpinning, I grant you - and (2) is rather ethereal and process-based.
If you stand for nothing, you can fall for anything, particularly if your opponent is calling the shots and outguns you in the campaign.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
I agree, Cyclefree. I don’t think a policy of sorting out a failing police force is going to be successfully portrayed as ‘weak on crime’.
I’m not sure even the reliable Tory pensioner vote would be fooled by that crap any more.
Suella talks a very good job. It is very interesting that she has fallen four square behind Rowley to condemn Casey's language. The condemnation has dismissed a central plank of Cast's report. The Met owe Suella.
Probably the worst Home Secretary we’ve had. Though not without recent strong competition.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
I don't think it's just that. I think people can see the start of a very slow a and gradual shift back to the government at more or less the moment you expect swingback to start kicking in...
I do myself think Starmer will be the next PM but it's going to be hard faught election and Labour will need to up their game in the way @MaxPB has outlined.
It might be a bit early to say it, but we might look back at this period, this week in particularly, as when the polls turned and the penny dropped that Sunak hanging on to a majority John Major style, became a real opportunity, whilst Labours dream of a majority of their own died.
Betting that Dishi is Oh Yes! is definitely the value bet. Both John Major and Rishi Sunak are decent human beings. Both became leaders of a Tory party which was increasingly frootloop and decreasingly worthy of anyone voting for.
So the question remains whether this is 1991 and Starmer is Kinnochio, or whether this is 1996 and Sunak is out of road and reliant on the support of the UUP ERG...
You are right on this one. Starmer does fit the “Phillipson/Nandy/Streeting could never have won without Starmer hauling the party back to respectability after the Corbyn years” role perfectly.
Potentially. And the door remains open to voters voting once again for mentalists like Jonathan Gullis. I remain hopeful that isn't the case, primarily because of what it says about us as a society if they do.
Politics used to be disagreements about policy. You could dislike Blair / Major / Cameron etc wthout knowing them to be crooks and shysters. Now? Its survival of the moral, and *both* sides consider themselves to be the moralists standing up to disgusting opposition. Even the ones who are openly corrupt / dishonest / jingoistic.
“ Politics used to be disagreements about policy. You could dislike Blair / Major / Cameron etc wthout knowing them to be crooks and shysters. Now? Its survival of the moral, and *both* sides consider themselves to be the moralists standing up to disgusting opposition. Even the ones who are openly corrupt / dishonest / jingoistic.”
And this little dossier of paragraph is your defence against the charge you turned to fascism?
Why didn’t you just say, young lady, when I was young like you are now, my heart was just like an open book, so I used to say, live and let live. But when this ever changing world in which we live in, makes you give in and cry - say live and let die.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
This is why we need a rival police force, Sheriffs, with overlapping responsibilities. Make them compete for budgets and see who can get higher clear up rates and solve more crime.
Rival investigators would lead to some horrendous problems, just look at the US where forces actively target and over police poor and vulnerable parts of society as their income is directly funded by the fines and money recovered. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-ticket-quotas-money-funding.html I do think a properly reasoned reform pitch would work, there's been enough cut through for many to recognise something needs doing. It's just a shame the current lot seem more interested in dinghy's and cheap headlines than difficult but necessary legwork to make reforms work.
Hello from the executive lounge of Hilton Wembley. I am going to have to do some work this year to hit the threshold to keep my Diamond status going. This is stay 5 this year and I need 30. As I get so much value in upgrades with my status I can see myself doing the hotel equivalent of an airlines points run to ensure I keep at this level.
British Army’s £5.5bn Ajax armoured vehicle project delayed yet again. Now not likely to see service much before 2030. So a mere 15 years from order placed to deployment. But MoD still pays General Dynamics large cheque. Because delays down to MoD’s 1,200 specification changes
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
I agree, Cyclefree. I don’t think a policy of sorting out a failing police force is going to be successfully portrayed as ‘weak on crime’.
I’m not sure even the reliable Tory pensioner vote would be fooled by that crap any more.
Suella talks a very good job. It is very interesting that she has fallen four square behind Rowley to condemn Casey's language. The condemnation has dismissed a central plank of Cast's report. The Met owe Suella.
Probably the worst Home Secretary we’ve had. Though not without recent strong competition.
13 years of Tory Home Secs and look at the state of policing. Not that the New Labour ones were much better.
"In the political pre-history of 2011, the Scottish Conservative leadership election was considered a somewhat bitter contest. On reflection, it was a teddy bears’ picnic in comparison to the current wrestling match."
Ruth does not exaggerate, I still remember it well and I have no regrets what so ever in backing and voting for Ruth in that contest.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
I agree, Cyclefree. I don’t think a policy of sorting out a failing police force is going to be successfully portrayed as ‘weak on crime’.
I’m not sure even the reliable Tory pensioner vote would be fooled by that crap any more.
Suella talks a very good job. It is very interesting that she has fallen four square behind Rowley to condemn Casey's language. The condemnation has dismissed a central plank of Cast's report. The Met owe Suella.
Probably the worst Home Secretary we’ve had. Though not without recent strong competition.
It's a post that seems to attract some of our worst politicians. There have been some real horrors - Reginald Maudling, Henry Brooke, Ivan Waddington. Suella has some real competition there but she's shaping up nicely.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about [****], yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
On inflation, I'm reliably informed that McDonald's just has or is about to cut the price of its meals in the UK. It's the first price cut they've made since 2021 apparently.
A new menu is due next week, so presumably then.
McDonalds have consistently priced themselves down. Their products set the stage though. McD cheeseburger - best basic burger winner, all years; McD Quarter pounder - best gormet burger, some years; McD Big Mac - best fancy burger, pretty much forever.
If I had their product I'd be going up market.
I pity you, for living in a world where McDonalds is the best of all possible burgers.
Only thing on the whole freaking menu that's not total barf-bag filler, are McD french fries.
A good burger is like a bra.
Burgers, like bras, are a third engineering, a third anticipation, and a third big messy mouthfuls.
The first rule of a burger is that it’s a sandwich. You must be able to eat it with your hands.
The 'fancy' burgers that you can barely lift in your hands, never mind take a bite of, are one of the worst 'gastronomy' trends of all time.
There is a quite enjoyable Heston Blumenthal show 'In search of perfection' with one episode focussed on burgers and he goes into the eat-ability of burgers in some depth with some research scientists.
"Fancy" burgers are as crap as McDonalds. Just in different way.
Gross excess is as off-putting as gross lowness.
Best burgers are those which you grill in the backyard or at a campground, with decent quality hamburger meat and a few fresh toppings and condiments.
On inflation, I'm reliably informed that McDonald's just has or is about to cut the price of its meals in the UK. It's the first price cut they've made since 2021 apparently.
A new menu is due next week, so presumably then.
McDonalds have consistently priced themselves down. Their products set the stage though. McD cheeseburger - best basic burger winner, all years; McD Quarter pounder - best gormet burger, some years; McD Big Mac - best fancy burger, pretty much forever.
If I had their product I'd be going up market.
Every time I eat a McDonalds it feels good at the time and then I feel pretty rancid a few hours later.
Don't tell mum, but I had a Double McPlant on Thursday, and a Double Plant-based Whopper at BK just today
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
There is quite a concentration in some streets of SW1.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
They are happy to go for motoring offences or social media posts though.
Target culture in action, as it is in the NHS.
Can tick a lot of crimes as sorted if you pick the low hanging fruit.
The original crime ("laddering") of DCI Gates in Series 1 of Line of Duty. Which escalated somewhat into the hunt for H.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
I don't think it's just that. I think people can see the start of a very slow a and gradual shift back to the government at more or less the moment you expect swingback to start kicking in...
I do myself think Starmer will be the next PM but it's going to be hard faught election and Labour will need to up their game in the way @MaxPB has outlined.
It might be a bit early to say it, but we might look back at this period, this week in particular, as when the polls turned and the penny dropped that Sunak hanging on to a majority John Major style, became a real opportunity, whilst Labours dream of a majority of their own died.
Asking me if I might interested in working for the Bank of England.
Part of the role would be to reassure the markets, the public, and financial services companies.
Am I any good at coming up with memorables phrases and KPIs that the public would understand.
If the BoE publish a stepmon index on financial stability you know I've got the job.
You mean like calibrate level of pounding stocks have taken today?
The guilty essentials of gilts?
How greener stocks are taken in by the market?
Wether prices are hardening, or going straight down?
I don't think the markets can take being pumped with quite that much liquidity
And let’s not go through all the pro’s and cons of equity release opportunities either, many of which would be a mistake. But TSE could be on to something for measuring spread and yield?
I guess there’s always a category of once prominent and promising assets, which have now fallen out of it completely.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
I don't think it's just that. I think people can see the start of a very slow a and gradual shift back to the government at more or less the moment you expect swingback to start kicking in...
I do myself think Starmer will be the next PM but it's going to be hard faught election and Labour will need to up their game in the way @MaxPB has outlined.
It might be a bit early to say it, but we might look back at this period, this week in particular, as when the polls turned and the penny dropped that Sunak hanging on to a majority John Major style, became a real opportunity, whilst Labours dream of a majority of their own died.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
On inflation, I'm reliably informed that McDonald's just has or is about to cut the price of its meals in the UK. It's the first price cut they've made since 2021 apparently.
A new menu is due next week, so presumably then.
Yes I expect so. It's a good sign that food inflation has begun falling though. They wouldn't cut their prices unless they were sure their supply chain was shifting down in cost.
Or that their market is shrinking thanks to lacki of cash.
What we aren't told is how much the food will shrink in size.
Good for my waistline if it does shrink... Or will I just buy two Double Sausage and Egg McMuffins to compensate?
On inflation, I'm reliably informed that McDonald's just has or is about to cut the price of its meals in the UK. It's the first price cut they've made since 2021 apparently.
A new menu is due next week, so presumably then.
McDonalds have consistently priced themselves down. Their products set the stage though. McD cheeseburger - best basic burger winner, all years; McD Quarter pounder - best gormet burger, some years; McD Big Mac - best fancy burger, pretty much forever.
If I had their product I'd be going up market.
I pity you, for living in a world where McDonalds is the best of all possible burgers.
Only thing on the whole freaking menu that's not total barf-bag filler, are McD french fries.
A good burger is like a bra.
Burgers, like bras, are a third engineering, a third anticipation, and a third big messy mouthfuls.
The first rule of a burger is that it’s a sandwich. You must be able to eat it with your hands.
The 'fancy' burgers that you can barely lift in your hands, never mind take a bite of, are one of the worst 'gastronomy' trends of all time.
There is a quite enjoyable Heston Blumenthal show 'In search of perfection' with one episode focussed on burgers and he goes into the eat-ability of burgers in some depth with some research scientists.
I actually like those. I always go for gourmet burgers.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
Viz is patchy as any satire, but does hit the nail on the head so often.
I model myself on The Modern Parents and The Critics.
Mr Logic, Finbarr Saunders, Major Misunderstanding, Raffles, and a few others seem to haunt this list.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
Viz is patchy as any satire, but does hit the nail on the head so often.
I model myself on The Modern Parents and The Critics.
Mr Logic, Finbarr Saunders, Major Misunderstanding, Raffles, and a few others seem to haunt this list.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
Viz is patchy as any satire, but does hit the nail on the head so often.
I model myself on The Modern Parents and The Critics.
Mr Logic, Finbarr Saunders, Major Misunderstanding, Raffles, and a few others seem to haunt this list.
Victorian Dad was always one of my favourites. Some of the one-off strips were brilliant, too. Mickey's Monkey Spunk Moped will live long in the memory of anyone who read it.
The Telegraph understands Sir Keir’s civil service pension is not large enough to incur a tax charge under the pension cap system on its own, and he has not paid into it since 2013.
Under the current system, almost all taxpayers must pay rates of 25 per cent on money taken as income, or 55 per cent on a lump sum, on any sums over £1.07m.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
The Telegraph understands Sir Keir’s civil service pension is not large enough to incur a tax charge under the pension cap system on its own, and he has not paid into it since 2013.
Under the current system, almost all taxpayers must pay rates of 25 per cent on money taken as income, or 55 per cent on a lump sum, on any sums over £1.07m.
I was going to defend him similarly, but “the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013” won’t be a good look.
The Telegraph understands Sir Keir’s civil service pension is not large enough to incur a tax charge under the pension cap system on its own, and he has not paid into it since 2013.
Under the current system, almost all taxpayers must pay rates of 25 per cent on money taken as income, or 55 per cent on a lump sum, on any sums over £1.07m.
I was going to defend him similarly, but “the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013” won’t be a good look.
The reality is that if you want to get a good DPP you need to offer some decent perks.
He could have earned squillions in the private sector.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
A Boris-friendly paper throwing up some chaff on a day that could go really badly for Boris? Colour me shocked.
Meanwhile, the FT also have a pension story on their front page;
Plan to raise UK state pension age to 68 delayed amid falling life expectancy
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
The Telegraph understands Sir Keir’s civil service pension is not large enough to incur a tax charge under the pension cap system on its own, and he has not paid into it since 2013.
Under the current system, almost all taxpayers must pay rates of 25 per cent on money taken as income, or 55 per cent on a lump sum, on any sums over £1.07m.
I was going to defend him similarly, but “the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013” won’t be a good look.
The reality is that if you want to get a good DPP you need to offer some decent perks.
He could have earned squillions in the private sector.
I agree. But it’s not a good look for him. Shows he never expected to be LoTO in 2013.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
A Boris-friendly paper throwing up some chaff on a day that could go really badly for Boris? Colour me shocked.
Meanwhile, the FT also have a pension story on their front page;
Plan to raise UK state pension age to 68 delayed amid falling life expectancy
Tell the French. The solution to avoiding pension age increases is to eat more lard.
The Telegraph understands Sir Keir’s civil service pension is not large enough to incur a tax charge under the pension cap system on its own, and he has not paid into it since 2013.
Under the current system, almost all taxpayers must pay rates of 25 per cent on money taken as income, or 55 per cent on a lump sum, on any sums over £1.07m.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
Viz is patchy as any satire, but does hit the nail on the head so often.
I model myself on The Modern Parents and The Critics.
Mr Logic, Finbarr Saunders, Major Misunderstanding, Raffles, and a few others seem to haunt this list.
Victorian Dad was always one of my favourites. Some of the one-off strips were brilliant, too. Mickey's Monkey Spunk Moped will live long in the memory of anyone who read it.
Paul Daniels' Jet Ski Journey To The Centre Of Elvis
The Telegraph understands Sir Keir’s civil service pension is not large enough to incur a tax charge under the pension cap system on its own, and he has not paid into it since 2013.
Under the current system, almost all taxpayers must pay rates of 25 per cent on money taken as income, or 55 per cent on a lump sum, on any sums over £1.07m.
I was going to defend him similarly, but “the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013” won’t be a good look.
The reality is that if you want to get a good DPP you need to offer some decent perks.
He could have earned squillions in the private sector.
I agree. But it’s not a good look for him. Shows he never expected to be LoTO in 2013.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
The Telegraph understands Sir Keir’s civil service pension is not large enough to incur a tax charge under the pension cap system on its own, and he has not paid into it since 2013.
Under the current system, almost all taxpayers must pay rates of 25 per cent on money taken as income, or 55 per cent on a lump sum, on any sums over £1.07m.
Noted by some of my colleagues that a lot of MPs must be near that LTA with their 1/40 final salary accrual rate.
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
Viz is patchy as any satire, but does hit the nail on the head so often.
I model myself on The Modern Parents and The Critics.
Mr Logic, Finbarr Saunders, Major Misunderstanding, Raffles, and a few others seem to haunt this list.
Oh God Viz. It's not as funny as it used to be ...
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
As a Londoner, it's a devastating, damning indictment of the Met but it's more than that. The closure of operational stations since 2010 has severely hampered the ability of the Police to do their job. Any prisoners need to be taken to one of the few 24-hour stations and that often means officers off patrol for hours.
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
Well, it's difficult to say. What proportion of Londoners are criminals?
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about "Sooties", yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz's very best creations. And that's saying something.
Viz is patchy as any satire, but does hit the nail on the head so often.
I model myself on The Modern Parents and The Critics.
Mr Logic, Finbarr Saunders, Major Misunderstanding, Raffles, and a few others seem to haunt this list.
Victorian Dad was always one of my favourites. Some of the one-off strips were brilliant, too. Mickey's Monkey Spunk Moped will live long in the memory of anyone who read it.
Paul Daniels' Jet Ski Journey To The Centre Of Elvis
Off topic, but I think this will cheer most of you: 'NEW YORK – Demonstrators who want a Donald Trump indictment far outnumbered MAGA supporters Tuesday morning outside the Manhattan Criminal Court, where the former president is expected to be charged as early as Wednesday. . . . “No one is above the law, ” the group of about 20 demonstrators chanted. . . . Across the street from the anti-Trump rally, five supporters of the former president walked around holding signs including one that highlighted liberal billionaire George Soros support for Bragg, a common right-wing talking point. Trump has seized on a $500,000 donation to Bragg from a political action committee funded by Soros that was part of a nationwide effort to help elect progressive district attorneys.'
A few more pro-Trump protesters -- or possibly performance artists -- showed up later.
Granted, this happened in Manhattan, but it still tells us something.
(For the record, many American voters have come to the conclusion that "progressive" prosecutors are soft on crime, especially when the victims are "people of color". Which explains, for example, why Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot came in third in the recent primary.)
So we’re supposed to be outraged by Starmers pension deal ! Meanwhile poor Rishi is starting a go fund me page to help heat his pool !
British fair play don’t mind fair play, but don’t like a cheat. Don’t like financial cheats and hypocrites.
What else is a self promoted white knight hiding? And the mind of the criminal, to think they will get away with it, will never be discovered and caught red handed like this.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Absolutely - the logics sound!
You are Starmer. You know how this will look on the papers. How it lets your campaign and all the hard foot soldiers down. Are you oblivious to the fact your rival Tory dirty tricks team and all the jackals in the Tory press are sniffing around for this sort of opportunity? Either you are naively oblivious or you are merely laissez faire at dealing with it before they out you first and demand you deal with it, hence causing the massive damage.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
Surely he can see that?
That's the only way Labour win general elections. That is why the only Labour leader to win one in 40 years is Tony Blair.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
Surely he can see that?
Yup. People forget that Blair was actually pretty radical (wind fall tax, NMW, Bank independence, Human Rights Act, Social Chapter, foreign aid). The idea of him coming in and copying the Tories is a Bennite fiction that has become received wisdom; so much so that Labour risks copying the caricature, not the man. There’s a similar risk in following the advice of 2023 Blair/Mandelson/Campbell. They are different men now.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
Surely he can see that?
That's the only way Labour win general elections. That is why the only Labour leader to win one in 40 years is Tony Blair.
Harold Wilson won 4 elections as a social democrat effectively, even without Blair's landslides.
Labour don't need to win majorities of over 150 like Blair did, they just need to win
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Absolutely - the logics sound!
You are Starmer. You know how this will look on the papers. How it lets your campaign and all the hard foot soldiers down. Are you oblivious to the fact your rival Tory dirty tricks team and all the jackals in the Tory press are sniffing around for this sort of opportunity? Either you are naively oblivious or you are merely laissez faire at dealing with it before they out you first and demand you deal with it, hence causing the massive damage.
So yes. Blame Starmer.
Isn’t the DPP pension decided by the government of the day which in 2013 was the Tory Lib Dem coalition ? In all honesty I don’t give two hoots what Starmers pension plans are . I want rid of the Tories and will vote accordingly .
Generally a Keir Starmer fan, but one area where I think he got it totally wrong was backing Cressida Dick. Wrong on the policy and wrong on the politics.
Police could be a really strong issue for Labour... but Starmer needs to be decisive.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
It is looking very, very bleak for those of us who are tired of the Conservatives. You have a point that Sunak is a 10/10 performer whilst Starmer barely makes a 0. There is more to it than just Starmer's poor performance, we are just not a left of centre nation. Sunak-Tories have quite cleverly positioned themselves as both centre right and extreme right which Hoovers up the 40 per cent they need for a permanent reasonable majority. The one positive is when Sunak prevails Johnson is finished
I'm guessing you're taking the piss. If not you have serious issues of judgement. The Tories have disqualified themselves and the public will not vote for them in sufficient numbers for at least two elections. Very possibly more. They are a very dead parrot and no amount of resuscitation will help in the foreseeable future
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
"I could not fail to disagree with you less!" - Boris, 2003.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
Surely he can see that?
That's the only way Labour win general elections. That is why the only Labour leader to win one in 40 years is Tony Blair.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
It is looking very, very bleak for those of us who are tired of the Conservatives. You have a point that Sunak is a 10/10 performer whilst Starmer barely makes a 0. There is more to it than just Starmer's poor performance, we are just not a left of centre nation. Sunak-Tories have quite cleverly positioned themselves as both centre right and extreme right which Hoovers up the 40 per cent they need for a permanent reasonable majority. The one positive is when Sunak prevails Johnson is finished
I'm guessing you're taking the piss. If not you have serious issues of judgement. The Tories have disqualified themselves and the public will not vote for them in sufficient numbers for at least two elections. Very possibly more. They are a very dead parrot and no amount of resuscitation will help in the foreseeable future
Have you not been paying any attention this week? 🙄
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
Surely he can see that?
That's the only way Labour win general elections. That is why the only Labour leader to win one in 40 years is Tony Blair.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Absolutely - the logics sound!
You are Starmer. You know how this will look on the papers. How it lets your campaign and all the hard foot soldiers down. Are you oblivious to the fact your rival Tory dirty tricks team and all the jackals in the Tory press are sniffing around for this sort of opportunity? Either you are naively oblivious or you are merely laissez faire at dealing with it before they out you first and demand you deal with it, hence causing the massive damage.
So yes. Blame Starmer.
Isn’t the DPP pension decided by the government of the day which in 2013 was the Tory Lib Dem coalition ? In all honesty I don’t give two hoots what Starmers pension plans are . I want rid of the Tories and will vote accordingly .
Fair enough. You know how that sounds though, shredding any morality you may have once had in such decision making?
Meanwhile. Sunak Oversold Brexit Deal to DUP, Minister claims, on the eye. 🤔
I’m claiming we have seen peak WF now, all we will hear from here is what’s wrong with it. But it only really hurts Sunak when he makes it law, tying himself to everything wrong with it, and the unwelcome headlines and grievances that will keep happening.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
It is looking very, very bleak for those of us who are tired of the Conservatives. You have a point that Sunak is a 10/10 performer whilst Starmer barely makes a 0. There is more to it than just Starmer's poor performance, we are just not a left of centre nation. Sunak-Tories have quite cleverly positioned themselves as both centre right and extreme right which Hoovers up the 40 per cent they need for a permanent reasonable majority. The one positive is when Sunak prevails Johnson is finished
I'm guessing you're taking the piss. If not you have serious issues of judgement. The Tories have disqualified themselves and the public will not vote for them in sufficient numbers for at least two elections. Very possibly more. They are a very dead parrot and no amount of resuscitation will help in the foreseeable future
Have you not been paying any attention this week? 🙄
You’re saying the parrot was not dead, it was only pining for the fjords?
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
This is why we need a rival police force, Sheriffs, with overlapping responsibilities. Make them compete for budgets and see who can get higher clear up rates and solve more crime.
Let's just go full Jonathan Wilde and have a top thief be a top thief taker. There's synergy there.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
"I could not fail to disagree with you less!" - Boris, 2003.
‘It was not a goal, it was an endless orgasm. Unforgettable'. - Sócrates
I broadly agree with the thrust of the thread header and what many have said. However, linking it back to electoral politics can I be a cynical git for a moment?
If Labour goes all in on police reform, there’s a massive opportunity (electorally - I am not saying I agree with it, in fact I hate the idea) for the Tories to “defend” the “majority of decent coppers” against them. Like the Rwanda stuff, it would play well for the voters they want. Put brutally, those protesting over Sarah Everard probably mostly didn’t vote Tory anyway. Ironically, this would have been a perfect moment for Theresa May as Home Secretary as I’m sure she’d have reformed the police. I think Braverman will go the other way.
Being extra cynical, if I’m right about all that then ask yourself this: if party A wants to reform Police Force X and spoil the fun, but party B holds back, and Police Force X polices both of their places of work, what do you think the chances are of criminal issues starting to emerge around party A whenever there’s half a case whilst anything about party B vanishes? I think high.
I am not sure I agree. The police are now so poorly regarded by so many across he political spectrum and amongst all classes that I think they have soaked up whatever natural reservoir of sympathy and support they once had. People see them as fundamentally no longer fit for purpose as an organisation - even though the majority of those actually doing the job are doing their best. I don't see much support coming to the Tories from defending et another vested interest group.
I think you’d be surprised. Many think the police are failing, but they also think the answer is to “allow” then to go back to “giving a clip round the ear” and to let them beat up some criminals.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s enough of that about to allow Starmer to be cast as “weak on crime” if he’s not careful.
Given how few crimes the police actually investigate - fraud, no; burglary, no; car theft, no; bicycle theft - you have got to be joking; mugging, no; rape - sort of but we'll cock it up, threats of violence, no, knife crime - well, we'll try, the "weak on crime" label is more properly applied to the police.
This is why we need a rival police force, Sheriffs, with overlapping responsibilities. Make them compete for budgets and see who can get higher clear up rates and solve more crime.
Let's just go full Jonathan Wilde and have a top thief be a top thief taker. There's synergy there.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
Surely he can see that?
Why wouldn't he win with that? People used to joke that given individual policies polled well but the leader might not, that what the British public wanted was Labour policies delivered by Tory governments, why not Tory policies by a Labour government?
Outside a few areas there is really not that much ideological difference between the parties.
That's not to say there are not big differences - there are - this isn't a 'they are all the same' complaint. Just that ideology is a figleaf reason for changes, and each side will do what seems right and then find a way to claim it is ideologically sound later.
Generally a Keir Starmer fan, but one area where I think he got it totally wrong was backing Cressida Dick. Wrong on the policy and wrong on the politics.
Police could be a really strong issue for Labour... but Starmer needs to be decisive.
I'm not convinced that Sunak will necessarily come out on top if he and Starmer end up going head-to-head on the integrity and probity of their private financial arrangements.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Absolutely - the logics sound!
You are Starmer. You know how this will look on the papers. How it lets your campaign and all the hard foot soldiers down. Are you oblivious to the fact your rival Tory dirty tricks team and all the jackals in the Tory press are sniffing around for this sort of opportunity? Either you are naively oblivious or you are merely laissez faire at dealing with it before they out you first and demand you deal with it, hence causing the massive damage.
So yes. Blame Starmer.
Isn’t the DPP pension decided by the government of the day which in 2013 was the Tory Lib Dem coalition ? In all honesty I don’t give two hoots what Starmers pension plans are . I want rid of the Tories and will vote accordingly .
Fair enough. You know how that sounds though, shredding any morality you made have once had in such decision making?
I’m not sure it’s a good look for Tory voters to moralize about others alleged lack of morality ! A flawed Labour leader is still a big step up on what Tory voters have inflicted on the country over recent years l
Meanwhile. Sunak Oversold Brexit Deal to DUP, Minister claims, on the eye. 🤔
I’m claiming we have seen peak WF now, all we will hear from here is what’s wrong with it. But it only really hurts Sunak when he makes it law, tying himself to everything wrong with it, and the unwelcome headlines and grievances that will keep happening.
So what we're being told is that those supporting a proposal talk it up, and those opposed to it talk it down.
Generally a Keir Starmer fan, but one area where I think he got it totally wrong was backing Cressida Dick. Wrong on the policy and wrong on the politics.
Police could be a really strong issue for Labour... but Starmer needs to be decisive.
Well, that's not going to happen then!
He'll be decisive on it, just give him some time to weigh up the options and assess it first! Say a couple of years.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
It is looking very, very bleak for those of us who are tired of the Conservatives. You have a point that Sunak is a 10/10 performer whilst Starmer barely makes a 0. There is more to it than just Starmer's poor performance, we are just not a left of centre nation. Sunak-Tories have quite cleverly positioned themselves as both centre right and extreme right which Hoovers up the 40 per cent they need for a permanent reasonable majority. The one positive is when Sunak prevails Johnson is finished
I'm guessing you're taking the piss. If not you have serious issues of judgement. The Tories have disqualified themselves and the public will not vote for them in sufficient numbers for at least two elections. Very possibly more. They are a very dead parrot and no amount of resuscitation will help in the foreseeable future
Have you not been paying any attention this week? 🙄
I haven't as it happens but as with any mass change of mind weeks or months even never change anything significantly. What Daily Mail Front Page have I missed?
It's remarkable that Blair was the only Labour leader born since the end of the first repeat First World War to win a majority at a general election.
Admittedly there have only been three.
And he governed more as a liberal than a socialist.
Wilson was helped by the fact most of the electorate was still working class in the 1960s and 1970s, now the median voter is lower middle class. Albeit that does mean the average voter is more socially liberal than they were in the 1970s and more voters are graduates but the average voters is also economically less statist than they were then (helped also by Thatcher's council house sales creating more home owners)
After a major police scandal* in Chicago, in 1960 Mayor Richard M. Daley appointed O. W. Wilson - who had some success in cleaning up a rotten department. 'Reforms demanded at the outset by Wilson included establishment of a non-partisan police board to help govern the police force, a strict merit system for promotions within the department, an aggressive, nationwide recruiting drive for hiring new officers, and higher police salaries to attract professionally qualified officers.[8] For starters, Wilson moved the superintendent's office from City Hall to Police Headquarters and closed police districts and redrew their boundaries without regard to politics. Hiring standards were raised, graft curbed, and discipline tightened, with a new Police Board overseeing it. Wilson updated the communications system, adopted computers and improved record-keeping, bought new squad cars, and eliminated most foot patrols. Police boasted of quicker response times to citizen calls. Police morale, and the public image of the police, rose.[citation needed] He created new programs for internal review of police misconduct, but strongly resisted efforts at civilian review of police advocated by civil rights activists.[9]
During his tenure, Wilson recruited more African American officers, promoted black sergeants, and called for police restraint in racial conflicts.[10] Wilson also expanded programs that targeted low-income and high-crime neighborhoods with intensified policing, including a focus on minor violations (a precursor to later "broken windows" policing strategies). Arrests of black Chicagoans increased dramatically and disproportionately during Wilson's tenure. He also advocated for the legalizing of stop and frisk practices and opposed the civil disobedience tactics of the Chicago Freedom Movement.[9]' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._W._Wilson
(*Among other things one gang of police officers had beome burglars. At that time, many Chicagoans might have tolerated, or even favored, a certain amount of police corruption, but there were limits.)
For someone who is so utterly useless, indecisive and boring (and nothing at all like Tony Blair, yawn), it's hard to understand how Starmer has brought Labour back from the abyss of long-term electoral oblivion in 2019 (as reported by most on here) to being, er, favourites to win the next GE.
Don't tell me - it's all luck and/or thanks to the Tories.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
Surely he can see that?
That's the only way Labour win general elections. That is why the only Labour leader to win one in 40 years is Tony Blair.
Harold Wilson won 4 elections as a social democrat effectively, even without Blair's landslides.
Labour don't need to win majorities of over 150 like Blair did, they just need to win
I'd go further. We don't need to win. The Tories just need to lose.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
It is looking very, very bleak for those of us who are tired of the Conservatives. You have a point that Sunak is a 10/10 performer whilst Starmer barely makes a 0. There is more to it than just Starmer's poor performance, we are just not a left of centre nation. Sunak-Tories have quite cleverly positioned themselves as both centre right and extreme right which Hoovers up the 40 per cent they need for a permanent reasonable majority. The one positive is when Sunak prevails Johnson is finished
I'm guessing you're taking the piss. If not you have serious issues of judgement. The Tories have disqualified themselves and the public will not vote for them in sufficient numbers for at least two elections. Very possibly more. They are a very dead parrot and no amount of resuscitation will help in the foreseeable future
Have you not been paying any attention this week? 🙄
I haven't as it happens but as with any mass change of mind weeks or months even never change anything significantly. What Daily Mail Front Page have I missed?
The telegraph actually. Plus a steady drip of remarkable poll movements in Sunak’s rating and Tories cutting into Labours lead.
For someone who is so utterly useless, indecisive and boring, and nothing at all like Tony Blair, it's hard to understand how Starmer has brought Labour back from the abyss of long-term electoral oblivion in 2019 (as reported by most on here) to being, er, favourites to win the next GE.
Don't tell me - it's all luck and/or thanks to the Tories.
No. You don't get that far ahead purely down to who is opposite you. Same way Boris can take some credit for how big a win he got in 2019, even though obviously Corbyn was a major factor.
Starmer's careful, gently goes approach has meant he comes across as plausible and does not repulse many voters (unless they are Corbynite voters), which was ideal for when the Tories decided infighting and corruption was a really good look. Whether he can sustain that if the Tories can regain some discipline and show some more achievement we shall see, but he's in a good place.
It's one Poll. Can't believe everyone is suddenly thinking Lab won't have the next PM.
It is looking very, very bleak for those of us who are tired of the Conservatives. You have a point that Sunak is a 10/10 performer whilst Starmer barely makes a 0. There is more to it than just Starmer's poor performance, we are just not a left of centre nation. Sunak-Tories have quite cleverly positioned themselves as both centre right and extreme right which Hoovers up the 40 per cent they need for a permanent reasonable majority. The one positive is when Sunak prevails Johnson is finished
I'm guessing you're taking the piss. If not you have serious issues of judgement. The Tories have disqualified themselves and the public will not vote for them in sufficient numbers for at least two elections. Very possibly more. They are a very dead parrot and no amount of resuscitation will help in the foreseeable future
Have you not been paying any attention this week? 🙄
I haven't as it happens but as with any mass change of mind weeks or months even never change anything significantly. What Daily Mail Front Page have I missed?
The telegraph actually. Plus a steady drip of remarkable poll movements in Sunak’s rating and Tories cutting into Labours lead.
Blimey, that's an unflattering photo the Telegraph have found. Interesting that their Back Boris story is fairly small print, tucked away on the edge of the front page.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Evening, Tory Girl
Behave! Naughty Sunil. It’s a fact, these run ups to spring elections every year now have seen all sorts of bad Starmer stories appear in papers to drive the news narrative, rising Tory ratings, sinking labour ratings, and eventually, and watch for it it’s proves me right, Labour eventually whining they weren’t able to get their positive message across.
So you’re blaming Starmer for right wing trash papers printing daily hatchet jobs . Not sure I understand that logic .
Starmer ain't going to win an election with a policy of "Tory policies, but with a pained expression".
Surely he can see that?
That's the only way Labour win general elections. That is why the only Labour leader to win one in 40 years is Tony Blair.
It's almost 50 years now: Wilson won in 1973.
Edit to add, 1974. Sorry.
Although of course 1974 didn't give Labour a working majority for 4 or 5 years. The first election that year was a hung parliament, and the second gave them a tiny majority which only lasted for about 18 months due to by-election losses. After that they were reliant on the Liberals and the SNP. You have to go back to 1966 to find a Labour election victory with a working majority where the leader wasn't Tony Blair.
Comments
Or maybe I'm just rubbish at eating.
“I wish more people had shown up,” said Trump supporter Philippe Lejeune.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/21/maga-protesters-in-manhattan-crowded-out-by-anti-trump-rivals-00088099
As others have said, most low-level criminality is ignored or pushed onto the Boroughs under the cover of "anti-social behaviour".
The Casey Report goes well beyond that, however. It lays bare cultures in the Met which we'd like to think no longer existed. I can only think the problem begins with the recruitment process and particularly in London how representative the Met is of the communities it is charged with policing.
(1) Starmer only really got clear & consistent leads off the back of Johnson's scandals and incompetence in 2021 and the fall out thereafter - turboboosted by Truss. He didn't do much to deserve it (other than demonstrate Labour was No Longer Corbyn and a safe repository for votes again) and was a decidedly uninspired leader before that. Indeed, he was severely criticised on here for it throughout 2020 and early 2021.
(2) He gives every impression of executing a step-by-step electoral playback written out for him by someone else. Yes, he has the competence to recognise good advice, and to follow it, but it's not exactly sincere. People suspect that the real Starmer and what he's play acting are two very different things. And I think they're right.
Starmer is and remains what he has always been: a tedious tactical triangulator.
It's perfectly possible in my eyes for Sunak to undermine that. It's really only the toxified Conservative brand underpinning (1) now - a big underpinning, I grant you - and (2) is rather ethereal and process-based.
If you stand for nothing, you can fall for anything, particularly if your opponent is calling the shots and outguns you in the campaign.
This is not over yet.
Though not without recent strong competition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-ticket-quotas-money-funding.html
I do think a properly reasoned reform pitch would work, there's been enough cut through for many to recognise something needs doing. It's just a shame the current lot seem more interested in dinghy's and cheap headlines than difficult but necessary legwork to make reforms work.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b704ec2c-c805-11ed-84e7-e2697ffed9a9?shareToken=97cac82ebd2b6f61ac5035a4cbd13dd1
"In the political pre-history of 2011, the Scottish Conservative leadership election was considered a somewhat bitter contest. On reflection, it was a teddy bears’ picnic in comparison to the current wrestling match."
Ruth does not exaggerate, I still remember it well and I have no regrets what so ever in backing and voting for Ruth in that contest.
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker [...] wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about [****], yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Gross excess is as off-putting as gross lowness.
Best burgers are those which you grill in the backyard or at a campground, with decent quality hamburger meat and a few fresh toppings and condiments.
IF you wish to feed like a pig, get a trough.
Which escalated somewhat into the hunt for H.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlOxUcTcUH0
I guess there’s always a category of once prominent and promising assets, which have now fallen out of it completely.
Especially if he lost his Uxbridge seat at the same time...
https://www.goodtroublemag.com/home/drunken-baker-barney-farmer
I model myself on The Modern Parents and The Critics.
Mr Logic, Finbarr Saunders, Major Misunderstanding, Raffles, and a few others seem to haunt this list.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/hyprocrite-starmer-avoid-tax-pension/
"Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of hypocrisy after it emerged that he has a unique pension deal from his time as Director of Public Prosecutions which allows him to avoid tax on his savings..."
Under the current system, almost all taxpayers must pay rates of 25 per cent on money taken as income, or 55 per cent on a lump sum, on any sums over £1.07m.
They just can’t do the spring campaign season at all, can they? It’s got to be worrying for Labour support now, under Starmer, campaigning is just so weak, easily knocked off their grid, easily outflanked by the Tories every year now.
Ron DeSantis opens fire on Trump’s character, chaotic leadership style'
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1638286905849663490?s=20
He could have earned squillions in the private sector.
Meanwhile, the FT also have a pension story on their front page;
Plan to raise UK state pension age to 68 delayed amid falling life expectancy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/21/jeremy-hunt-pensions-tax-break-expected-to-help-nearly-as-many-bankers-as-doctors
'NEW YORK – Demonstrators who want a Donald Trump indictment far outnumbered MAGA supporters Tuesday morning outside the Manhattan Criminal Court, where the former president is expected to be charged as early as Wednesday.
. . .
“No one is above the law, ” the group of about 20 demonstrators chanted.
. . .
Across the street from the anti-Trump rally, five supporters of the former president walked around holding signs including one that highlighted liberal billionaire George Soros support for Bragg, a common right-wing talking point. Trump has seized on a $500,000 donation to Bragg from a political action committee funded by Soros that was part of a nationwide effort to help elect progressive district attorneys.'
source: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/21/maga-protesters-in-manhattan-crowded-out-by-anti-trump-rivals-00088099
A few more pro-Trump protesters -- or possibly performance artists -- showed up later.
Granted, this happened in Manhattan, but it still tells us something.
(For the record, many American voters have come to the conclusion that "progressive" prosecutors are soft on crime, especially when the victims are "people of color". Which explains, for example, why Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot came in third in the recent primary.)
What else is a self promoted white knight hiding? And the mind of the criminal, to think they will get away with it, will never be discovered and caught red handed like this.
Surely he can see that?
You are Starmer. You know how this will look on the papers. How it lets your campaign and all the hard foot soldiers down. Are you oblivious to the fact your rival Tory dirty tricks team and all the jackals in the Tory press are sniffing around for this sort of opportunity? Either you are naively oblivious or you are merely laissez faire at dealing with it before they out you first and demand you deal with it, hence causing the massive damage.
So yes. Blame Starmer.
Labour don't need to win majorities of over 150 like Blair did, they just need to win
Somehow I don't think it will be the last.
Police could be a really strong issue for Labour... but Starmer needs to be decisive.
Edit to add, 1974. Sorry.
I’m claiming we have seen peak WF now, all we will hear from here is what’s wrong with it. But it only really hurts Sunak when he makes it law, tying himself to everything wrong with it, and the unwelcome headlines and grievances that will keep happening.
Admittedly there have only been three.
Outside a few areas there is really not that much ideological difference between the parties.
That's not to say there are not big differences - there are - this isn't a 'they are all the same' complaint. Just that ideology is a figleaf reason for changes, and each side will do what seems right and then find a way to claim it is ideologically sound later.
Someone stop those presses right now.
Wilson was helped by the fact most of the electorate was still working class in the 1960s and 1970s, now the median voter is lower middle class. Albeit that does mean the average voter is more socially liberal than they were in the 1970s and more voters are graduates but the average voters is also economically less statist than they were then (helped also by Thatcher's council house sales creating more home owners)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8vvDC2Dsjo
'Reforms demanded at the outset by Wilson included establishment of a non-partisan police board to help govern the police force, a strict merit system for promotions within the department, an aggressive, nationwide recruiting drive for hiring new officers, and higher police salaries to attract professionally qualified officers.[8] For starters, Wilson moved the superintendent's office from City Hall to Police Headquarters and closed police districts and redrew their boundaries without regard to politics. Hiring standards were raised, graft curbed, and discipline tightened, with a new Police Board overseeing it. Wilson updated the communications system, adopted computers and improved record-keeping, bought new squad cars, and eliminated most foot patrols. Police boasted of quicker response times to citizen calls. Police morale, and the public image of the police, rose.[citation needed] He created new programs for internal review of police misconduct, but strongly resisted efforts at civilian review of police advocated by civil rights activists.[9]
During his tenure, Wilson recruited more African American officers, promoted black sergeants, and called for police restraint in racial conflicts.[10] Wilson also expanded programs that targeted low-income and high-crime neighborhoods with intensified policing, including a focus on minor violations (a precursor to later "broken windows" policing strategies). Arrests of black Chicagoans increased dramatically and disproportionately during Wilson's tenure. He also advocated for the legalizing of stop and frisk practices and opposed the civil disobedience tactics of the Chicago Freedom Movement.[9]'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._W._Wilson
(*Among other things one gang of police officers had beome burglars. At that time, many Chicagoans might have tolerated, or even favored, a certain amount of police corruption, but there were limits.)
Don't tell me - it's all luck and/or thanks to the Tories.
Starmer's careful, gently goes approach has meant he comes across as plausible and does not repulse many voters (unless they are Corbynite voters), which was ideal for when the Tories decided infighting and corruption was a really good look. Whether he can sustain that if the Tories can regain some discipline and show some more achievement we shall see, but he's in a good place.
This isn’t normally part of giving evidence to these committees but clearly shows how desperate the fat lying oaf is to save his skin.
Rishi Sunak Red Wall Net Approval Rating (19 March):
Disapprove: 47% (+3)
Approve: 26% (–)
Net: -21% (-3)
Changes +/- 5 March
The polling is curious. The Tories are apparently going up in the Red Wall yet Sunak’s rankings here continue to sink.